Geoff Hutchison wrote:
>
> I wrote up some possible database layouts for ht://Dig. For each, I gave
> some advantages and disadvantages. My hope is that we can agree on a good
> layout and not have to worry about it. Since I'm not versed in SQL, I
> assumed we'd be sticking with the db package.
>
> Thoughts?
Before making new database designs I think it is important to state the goals
first. Let the market/user requirements determine the actual design.
I'll make a start at what I feel are some of the requirements that influence
the database design for the future of ht://Dig (in no particular order)
* phrase searching
* fuzzy searching (basically as it is now)
* use of "+" or "-" as prefix to search words (ala altavista)
* use of "near" as a method to determine relations between search words
* cross platform (unix, nt)
* ability to search only in specific areas of documents (title, headers, etc)
* better relevance ranking
* faster results generation for searches returning many hits
I would suggest we do a little research on what users actually want. With
that data we can create a real requirement specification. I realize that this
is a big departure from how ht://Dig was originally developed, but I have
learned a lot since I started on it! :-)
--
Andrew Scherpbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Contigo Software <http://www.contigo.com/>
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.
