2013/05/22 21:17 +, Rick James
In query syntax, TRUE is the same as 1; FALSE is the same as 0.
and UNKNOWN is NULL. (I actually have used a three-state comparison.)
It has been suggested that one who wants a real two-state field use the type
CHAR(0) NULL.
If you ha
On 05/22/2013 06:55 PM, Neil Tompkins wrote:
Hi,
I've just created some tables that I designed using the MySQL Workbench
Model. However, the database type BOOLEAN which was in my models has been
converted to TINYINT(1); I'm currently running MySQL Version 5.6.2-m5 on
Windows 2
In query syntax, TRUE is the same as 1; FALSE is the same as 0.
A minor syntax note: ENUM('FALSE', 'TRUE') would require quotes when using it.
If you have multiple 'flags', consider the SET datatype. (Yeah, it is somewhat
clumsy.)
If you have installed 5.6,
and false
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> On 22 May 2013, at 19:05, shawn green wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Neil,
>> >
>> > On 5/22/2013 1:05 PM, Neil Tompkins wrote:
>> >> Hi, Like the link states
>> >>
>> >> "For clarity: a TINYINT
Hello Neil,
On 5/22/2013 1:05 PM, Neil Tompkins wrote:
Hi, Like the link states
"For clarity: a TINYINT(1) datatype does NOT ENFORCE a boolean value data
entry. For instance, it's still possible to insert a value of "2" (any
integer up to the TINYINT max value). I pers
; "For clarity: a TINYINT(1) datatype does NOT ENFORCE a boolean value data
>> entry. For instance, it's still possible to insert a value of "2" (any
>> integer up to the TINYINT max value). I personally don't see the added
>> value of a 'BOOLEAN'
e
>
> Neil
>
> On 22 May 2013, at 19:05, shawn green wrote:
>
> > Hello Neil,
> >
> > On 5/22/2013 1:05 PM, Neil Tompkins wrote:
> >> Hi, Like the link states
> >>
> >> "For clarity: a TINYINT(1) datatype does NOT ENFORCE a boolean
Hi, Like the link states
"For clarity: a TINYINT(1) datatype does NOT ENFORCE a boolean value data
entry. For instance, it's still possible to insert a value of "2" (any
integer up to the TINYINT max value). I personally don't see the added
value of a 'BOOLEAN'
Hi,
I've just created some tables that I designed using the MySQL Workbench
Model. However, the database type BOOLEAN which was in my models has been
converted to TINYINT(1); I'm currently running MySQL Version 5.6.2-m5 on
Windows 2008 server.
Any ideas why this has been removed ?
Neil
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> Then I would have to check what values are available when inserting,
> and possibly normalise every so often. I'll think about that, and when
> I have enough data in the database I'll set up a test system to play
> with the possibility.
>
Yes
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:29, Richard Quadling wrote:
> Changing data in a database is the role of the database engine. It is
> much more efficient to have the cost on the insert than it is on the
> select.
>
Agreed. On insert I could even delegate the operation to another
thread which does not
> Yes, and an edge list model may perform better in other respects too:
>
> http://www.artfulsoftware.com/mysqlbook/sampler/mysqled1ch20.html
> http://www.artfulsoftware.com/mysqlbook/sampler/mysqled1ch20.html
>
Thanks. I am currently reading "Trees and Hierarchies in SQL for
Smarties" by Joe Celk
> If you are doing this often, you could leave spaces in the left and right
> values so that you could minimize the number of rows that need to be
> updated. The article makes every leaf use x and x+1 for left and right which
> forces another update to add a child. If instead you used x and x+20 yo
>> Actually, I'm the customer! But assuming that a customer exists, that
>> implies compensation, and therefore fair bait.
> Then that's different altogether. you get to decide what information
> is displayed, and what information is 'sensed', and on what platform.
>
Yes, but before I get to that
On 20 January 2011 19:20, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 19:21, Richard Quadling wrote:
>>> That is terrific, at least the first half. The second half, with the
>>> Venn diagrams, is awkward!
>>
>> When you get heavily nested data, the adjacent list model (where you
>> have a parent
My concern is exactly with adding new nodes. There
is no incrementor (++i) in SQL, so knowingly coding a solution that
will require incrementing two fields in half the database rows seems
irresponsible.
Yes, and an edge list model may perform better in other respects too:
http://www.artfulsoftw
>> [JS] I disagree. The method I proposed can be extended to any depth, and
>> any
>> leaf or branch can be retrieved with a single query.
>>
>
>I suppose for retrievals this structure has advantages, but unless
>MySQL has a ++ operator (or better yet, one that adds or subtracts 2
>from an int) th
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I understood that. My concern is exactly with adding new nodes. There
> is no incrementor (++i) in SQL, so knowingly coding a solution that
> will require incrementing two fields in half the database rows seems
> irresponsible.
>
It only req
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:05, David Harkness wrote:
> Thanks for the link. That article proposes an interesting way to organize
> the categories. Have you implemented this in the wild? Clearly the design
> would work as it's pretty simple, and I like that it removes the need for
> recursive queri
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> I'd recommend using a nested set approach for the tags
> (http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/hierarchical-data.html
> gives a good explanation on the issues and methodology of nested
> sets).
>
Thanks for the link. That article
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 21:40, Jerry Schwartz wrote:
>>Thanks. I prefer the "parent tag" field, though, I feel that it is
>>more flexible.
>>
>>
> [JS] I disagree. The method I proposed can be extended to any depth, and any
> leaf or branch can be retrieved with a single query.
>
I suppose for re
tion: surely someone has implemented many
>>Boolean values (tags) and a solution exist
>>
>>
>>> As for setting up a hierarchy, that's trickier. One way to handle that is
>>> to
>>> work like libraries do: 10 is "fiction", 10.05 is "
>-Original Message-
>From: Dotan Cohen [mailto:dotanco...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:25 AM
>To: Jerry Schwartz
>Cc: mysql.; php-general.
>Subject: Re: Organisational question: surely someone has implemented many
>Boolean values (tags) and a solutio
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 21:24, David Hutto wrote:
>>> Is this a troll? Am I about to be baited?
>>
>> Baited to deploy what is designed to the consumer's specification?
>> Surely. From what is wanted to what is needed. Troll on that.
>
> Actua
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 21:24, David Hutto wrote:
>> Is this a troll? Am I about to be baited?
>
> Baited to deploy what is designed to the consumer's specification?
> Surely. From what is wanted to what is needed. Troll on that.
Actually, I'm the customer! But assuming that a customer exists, th
> Is this a troll? Am I about to be baited?
Baited to deploy what is designed to the consumer's specification?
Surely. From what is wanted to what is needed. Troll on that.
>
> --
> Dotan Cohen
>
> http://gibberish.co.il
> http://what-is-what.com
>
--
The lawyer in me says argue...even if you'
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 20:50, David Hutto wrote:
> Pseudo = Design Algorithm
> Design Algorithm = Actual Code
> Actual Code = Alterable db tables
> Alterable db tables = manipulated data through the app interface with data
>
> --
> The lawyer in me says argue...even if you're wrong. The scientist
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 19:21, Richard Quadling wrote:
>> That is terrific, at least the first half. The second half, with the
>> Venn diagrams, is awkward!
>
> When you get heavily nested data, the adjacent set model (where you
> have a parentid for every uniqueid), you very quickly get into
> co
Pseudo = Design Algorithm
Design Algorithm = Actual Code
Actual Code = Alterable db tables
Alterable db tables = manipulated data through the app interface with data
--
The lawyer in me says argue...even if you're wrong. The scientist in
me... says shut up, listen, and then argue. But the lawyer
I cannot agree more with the others about using a join table. While it's
tempting to go with your first solution due to fear of performance issues,
you can usually address performance issues with a technical solution.
Addressing problems that arise from a constraining design choice is much
more dif
On 20 January 2011 16:20, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:00, Richard Quadling wrote:
>> I'd have my items table, my tags table and a join table for the two.
>> My join table is really simple. UniqueID, ItemID, TagID.
>>
>
> Yes, that is the first approach that I mentioned. It loo
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:22, Peter Brawley
wrote:
> I'd exclude (1) because new tags require restructuring the table, (2)
> and (3) because they break a cardinal rule of design and will be a mess
> to query, leaving ...
>
> 4) Standard many-many bridge table:
> mysql> CREATE TABLE items_tags (
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:22, Jerry Schwartz wrote:
> I think the canonical way would be to have one table for your items, one table
> for your tags, and one table for your tag assignments.
>
Thank you, I do agree that this is the best way. Other posters seem to
agree as well!
> Using an ever-
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 18:20, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:00, Richard Quadling wrote:
>> I'd have my items table, my tags table and a join table for the two.
>> My join table is really simple. UniqueID, ItemID, TagID.
>>
>
> Yes, that is the first approach that I mentioned. I
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:00, Richard Quadling wrote:
> I'd have my items table, my tags table and a join table for the two.
> My join table is really simple. UniqueID, ItemID, TagID.
>
Yes, that is the first approach that I mentioned. It looks to be a
good compromise.
> I'd recommend using a
On 20 January 2011 14:32, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I am designing an application that make heavy usage of one-to-many
> tags for items. That is, each item can have multiple tags, and there
> are tens of tags (likely to grow to hundreds). Most operation on the
> database are expected to be searches for
CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
E-mail: je...@gii.co.jp
Web site: www.the-infoshop.com
>-Original Message-
>From: Dotan Cohen [mailto:dotanco...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:32 AM
>To: mysql.; php-general.
>Subject: Organisational question: su
I'd exclude (1) because new tags require restructuring the table, (2)
and (3) because they break a cardinal rule of design and will be a mess
to query, leaving ...
4) Standard many-many bridge table:
mysql> CREATE TABLE items_tags (
id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
itemID int,
t
I am designing an application that make heavy usage of one-to-many
tags for items. That is, each item can have multiple tags, and there
are tens of tags (likely to grow to hundreds). Most operation on the
database are expected to be searches for the items that have a
particular tag. That is, users
t;>> phrases. However if I search like just "51" which is part of the string
>>> name like 51 Blue Widget in the table it doesn't return any results.
>>> However if I search like "bl" it returns the 51 Blue Widget result. My
>>> query is as
"bl" it returns the 51 Blue Widget result. My
>> query is as follows :
>>
>> SELECT Name MATCH (Name) AGAINST ('51*') as Relevance
>> FROM Products
>> WHERE MATCH (Name) AGAINST ('51*' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
>> ORDER BY Relevance DESC
>>
ch like "bl" it returns the 51 Blue Widget result. My
query is as follows :
SELECT Name MATCH (Name) AGAINST ('51*') as Relevance
FROM Products
WHERE MATCH (Name) AGAINST ('51*' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
ORDER BY Relevance DESC
Any ideas what the problem might be ?
&qu
Widget result. My
query is as follows :
SELECT Name MATCH (Name) AGAINST ('51*') as Relevance
FROM Products
WHERE MATCH (Name) AGAINST ('51*' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
ORDER BY Relevance DESC
Any ideas what the problem might be ?
Thanks,
Neil
he nuts because:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/fulltext-search.html
"Full-text indexes can be used only with MyISAM tables"
When I try a query on an InnoDB table:
"SELECT * FROM categories WHERE MATCH (name) AGAINST ('+ELECTRONICS' IN
BOOLEAN MODE);"
I get:
&
gt; mytable:
> > - item1:
> > --- firstname: Antonio
> > --- lastname: Fernández
> > --- comments: he's from Spain
> >
> > My SQL query:
> > --
> > SELECT id FROM mytable WHERE MATCH(firstname, lastname, comments)
> > AGAINST ('+"fernandez
--
> SELECT id FROM mytable WHERE MATCH(firstname, lastname, comments)
> AGAINST ('+"fernandez"' IN BOOLEAN MODE) ORDER BY firstname, lastname
>
>
> If mytable is in latin1, it works fine. But if mytable is in utf8
> (it's the case) it doesn't work. H
gt; mytable:
> - item1:
> --- firstname: Antonio
> --- lastname: Fernández
> --- comments: he's from Spain
>
> My SQL query:
> --
> SELECT id FROM mytable WHERE MATCH(firstname, lastname, comments)
> AGAINST ('+"fernandez"' IN BOOLEAN MODE) ORDER B
an SQL query to find a
string containing acute vowels.
mytable:
- item1:
--- firstname: Antonio
--- lastname: Fernández
--- comments: he's from Spain
My SQL query:
--
SELECT id FROM mytable WHERE MATCH(firstname, lastname, comments)
AGAINST ('+"fernandez"' IN BO
s)
AGAINST ('+"fernandez"' IN BOOLEAN MODE) ORDER BY firstname, lastname
If mytable is in latin1, it works fine. But if mytable is in utf8
(it's the case) it doesn't work. How can I change my SQL query to
match 'Fernández' in UTF8 within the table?
Thank
[Users] (many:many) [Groups] (many:many) [SwReleases] (1:many) [Files]
The many:many relationship between groups and software releases
specifies a
Boolean function, of the form "is in Group X or is in Group Y or ...".
Since one knows the user who is logged in (for a web database),
iles]
The many:many relationship between groups and software releases specifies a
Boolean function, of the form "is in Group X or is in Group Y or ...".
Since one knows the user who is logged in (for a web database), one can do
an outer join and quickly find all the software releases that
p between groups and software releases specifies a
Boolean function, of the form "is in Group X or is in Group Y or ...".
Since one knows the user who is logged in (for a web database), one can do
an outer join and quickly find all the software releases that the user may
view. I believe
pened, the server was always shut
down properly.
-Andy
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Andreas Iwanowski
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Fulltext search dilemma (IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Sorry, I have no idea wh
1, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: Jerry Schwartz
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: RE: Fulltext search dilemma (IN BOOLEAN MODE)
>
> Hi, thank you for your reply.
>
> I have used the option ft_min_word_len=3.
> If I have something like
> 1. "Key West"
> in the dat
Hi, thank you for your reply.
I have used the option ft_min_word_len=3.
If I have something like
1. "Key West"
in the database and I do a
SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE MATCH(Keywords) AGAINST ('Key' IN BOOLEAN
MODE)>0;
then I don't get any results either.
If I leave
ington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Iwanowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:49 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Fulltext search dilemma (IN BOOLEAN MODE)
>
&g
da
3. "Key West" Beach Florida
Now I do two fulltext searches on this column like this:
SELECT * FROM _my_table_here WHERE MATCH(Keywords) AGAINST ('*Key*
*West*' IN BOOLEAN MODE)>0;
SELECT * FROM _my_table_here WHERE MATCH(Keywords) AGAINST ('*Miami*
*Beach*' IN
ns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "C.R.Vegelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: boolean search on phrase
Hello:
I may be going out on a limb, as I missed part of the thread;
nevertheless, have you tried regular expressions?
As
y Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
> -Original Message-
> From: Visolve DB Team [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:55 AM
> To: C.R.Vegelin; mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subje
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "C.R.Vegelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: boolean search on phrase*
Hi,
Try with + and * fulltext boolean operators.
For instance,
MATCH (Description) AGAINST('+olive oil*' IN BOOLEAN MO
Hi,
Try with + and * fulltext boolean operators.
For instance,
MATCH (Description) AGAINST('+olive oil*' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
Thanks,
ViSolve DB Team.
- Original Message -
From: "C.R.Vegelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Visolve DB Team" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Thanks ViSolve,
So far I have tried the next alternatives, not giving me what I need:
a) ... MATCH (Description) AGAINST('"olive oil"' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
giving only "olive oil" but not "olive oils"
b) ... MATCH (Description) AGAINST('olive oil
m: "C.R.Vegelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: boolean search on phrase*
Hi All,
I want a boolean search on a phrase.
For example on "olive oil", but it should return also "olive oils" etc.
Now I use the foll
Hi All,
I want a boolean search on a phrase.
For example on "olive oil", but it should return also "olive oils" etc.
Now I use the following:
SELECT Description FROM products
WHERE MATCH (Description ) AGAINST('"olive oil"' IN BOOLEAN MODE);
This work
rd in the dictionary that ends with "ely"? You have to flip through every page, you can't take adavantage
of the word index (alphabetical).
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MySQL List"
Sent: Wednesday, Ju
Hey gang;
If I have understood the boolean search method correctly, from own
experiments and the docs, the asterisk operand cannot be put before a
word - it negates the preceeding word completely. How have you solved
this? I want my searches to match both words that starts with,
contains, and
*MySQL Manual - Chapter 12.7.4. Full-Text Restrictions* says: *Full-text
searches are supported for MyISAM tables only. *
You could try to do what i did... with some overhead... I also had InnoDB
tables for an application and also was in a great need of Full-Text
Searches.
I made a mirror MyISAM
Daevid,
- Original Message -
From: ""Daevid Vincent"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:54 AM
Subject: RE: Boolean searches on InnoDB tables?
Osku is working on FULLTEXT for InnoDB.
So, despite what th
saying that InnoDB tables cannot use a BOOLEAN search at all, no way,
no how?
At the moment I only have a small db while I'm building the product, so
"slow" is going to be relative at this point (ie. fast), and I would expect
it to converge when you get FULLTEXT working in InnoDB
Daevid,
- Original Message -
From: ""Daevid Vincent"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Boolean searches on InnoDB tables?
I just discovered this:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/f
c/refman/5.0/en/fulltext-search.html
"Full-text indexes can be used only with MyISAM tables"
When I try a query on an InnoDB table:
"SELECT * FROM categories WHERE MATCH (name) AGAINST ('+ELECTRONICS' IN
BOOLEAN MODE);"
I get:
"Error Code : 1214
The used table type
Please help me understand the functionality of the wildcard character with
Fulltext searching IN BOOLEAN MODE. For the following searches, I get tangible
query results as expected, except for the last search which returns no records
from the query. Why is this?
1. +jones +mag*
2. +smith +book
gt; Hi,
>
> I have a web app where I am doing a boolean search. I only want
> to return 10 results per page, but I'd also like to know how many total
> rows match the search query. I'm currently performing this with 2
> query statements:
>
> 1. (To get the
Hi,
I have a web app where I am doing a boolean search. I only want
to return 10 results per page, but I'd also like to know how many total
rows match the search query. I'm currently performing this with 2
query statements:
1. (To get the actual rows via
Hi,
I have a web app where I am doing a boolean search. I only want to return
10 results per page, but I'd also like to know how many total rows match the
search query. I'm currently performing this with 2 query statements:
1. (To get the actual rows via the search)
Hi,
I have a table with consumer products. I have a row "product name"
and "brand".
If I do a full-text search in boolean mode for a term like "apple
ipod" I get results like:
Apple iPod (brand: Apple)
TuneDock for Apple iPod (brand: Belkin)
Hi,
I have a table with consumer products. I have a row "product name" and
"brand".
If I do a full-text search in boolean mode for a term like "apple ipod" I get
results like:
Apple iPod (brand: Apple)
TuneDock for Apple iPod (brand: Belkin)
Paul DuBois wrote:
At 10:49 +0100 11/8/05, Jigal van Hemert wrote:
Lindsey wrote:
but do you know how to use the * in regexp searches. err what i mean
if i want to search for * and not use it as asterix?
" To use a literal instance of a special character in a regular
expression, precede it by
At 10:49 +0100 11/8/05, Jigal van Hemert wrote:
Lindsey wrote:
ok thanks, then i know!
but do you know how to use the * in regexp searches. err what i
mean if i want to search for * and not use it as asterix?
i have tried \* but that did't work, it just does the same as *.
The manual comes
Lindsey wrote:
ok thanks, then i know!
but do you know how to use the * in regexp searches. err what i mean if i want
to search for * and not use it as asterix?
i have tried \* but that did't work, it just does the same as *.
The manual comes again to the rescue ;-)
Appendix G [1] tells us:
t; > Lets say the table contains the following brands
> >
> > SAMSUNG
> > SIEMENS
> > SONY
> >
> > If you do a fulltext boolean search with the term:
> > -S*Y
> > -(S*Y)
> >
> > everyting that starts with an S will be excluded... any so
Lindsey wrote:
Lets say the table contains the following brands
SAMSUNG
SIEMENS
SONY
If you do a fulltext boolean search with the term:
-S*Y
-(S*Y)
everyting that starts with an S will be excluded... any solutions?
Although I couldn't find a question in your post, I guess you want to
Lets say the table contains the following brands
SAMSUNG
SIEMENS
SONY
If you do a fulltext boolean search with the term:
-S*Y
-(S*Y)
everyting that starts with an S will be excluded... any solutions?
-"S*Y" will return all.
-
FREE E
plication needs to parse the request
and send the proper query to mysql (the back end). Mysql is just a useful
tool. It stores your data and provides various forms of full-text searching:
Relevance scoring -
WHERE MATCH (doc, description) AGAINST ('dog cat')
OR searches -
WHERE MA
efaults to AND instead of OR.
> > Almost every search engine i have tried, google etc. works like this.
> > "black horse cat dog" only show results with all words present.
> >
> > This is what i did, set global ft_boolean_syntax = ' +-><()~*:""&|'
&
7;
>
> I really appreciate your help!!
>
> >From: Sergei Golubchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Jessica Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Please help me: Boolean fulltext searches, AND instead of
> OR
> >Date: Wed,
I ran into this problem a few months ago and the only workaround I could
think of was to escape the quotes in the table with """. Then your query
should be something like this
select * from feeds where MATCH(feed_title, feed_content) AGAINST('"Sean
"P. Diddy"
I'm using a boolean query to perform an exact match on musicians within a text
field. However, if the musician's name contains a quote, I get inaccurate
results. For example, this query works fine:
select * from feeds where MATCH(feed_title, feed_content) AGAINST('"Tom Pett
you are doing it correctly.. you should be able to sort by relevance. it
know you can sort like that because my search engine does using boolean.
Lee Denny wrote:
Hello,
I've just upgraded to 4.1 for boolean search facilities, but I think I may
lose more than I 've gained.
I j
Hello,
I've just upgraded to 4.1 for boolean search facilities, but I think I may
lose more than I 've gained.
I just really need the "+keyword1 keyword2" functionality so all results
must contain keyword1, but I then need to order by relevance score which
I've lost.
I
Hi!
Check the manual for ft_boolean_syntax variable.
It defines what character is used for every operator.
Space marks "default" operator - so you can change it.
On Jun 06, Sebastian wrote:
> I created a search app with fulltext, boolean, etc. i have two forms,
> one that al
I created a search app with fulltext, boolean, etc. i have two forms,
one that allows the user to just enter a basic search in a single input
field and a more advanced form with additional input areas for advanced
boolean searches.. now, when you do not specify a boolean operator, what
does it
88254
http://www.gunmuse.com
469 228 2183
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:13 AM
To: Mysql
Subject: Boolean searches
When using the Boolean search capabilities, I am finding it terribly slow.
Since I am sure
When using the
Boolean search capabilities, I am finding it terribly slow. Since I am
sure MySql uses this on their own site. What version of MySql is the
fastest at this 5.0?
I am using the
PHPMySearch and I really think he did fair job on the crawler part. I
built an XML converter
> > I have to keep all transactions in one table for our reporting and
futher
> > analysing and if some other customers need exports I just can create
batch
> > sripts which will export their data for their own processing.
> >
> > Thank you for your help and time and also thanks others which respo
> >> > > >maybe this is a silly question but how useful it is to create
> >> > > >indexes
> >> on
> >> > >>columns containing only values 0 and 1 (true and false)?
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps, instead of
Martijn,
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Index on boolean column
> > >maybe this is a silly question but how useful it is to create
> > >indexes
on
> >
> > > >maybe this is a silly question but how useful it is to create indexes
> on
> > >>columns containing only values 0 and 1 (true and false)?
> > >
> > > Perhaps, instead of the index, you might revise your schema a bit.
> > >
> > &
> > >maybe this is a silly question but how useful it is to create indexes
on
> >>columns containing only values 0 and 1 (true and false)?
> >
> > Perhaps, instead of the index, you might revise your schema a bit.
> >
> > Why do you have this boolean
>maybe this is a silly question but how useful it is to create indexes on
columns containing only values 0 and 1 (true and false)?
Perhaps, instead of the index, you might revise your schema a bit.
Why do you have this boolean column? What are you trying to
achieve?
I use boolean columns a
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
