Hi!
On Mar 01, William Au wrote:
> Sergei, but this is a phrase search. The original query is:
>
> match (keywords) against ('"16-bit Touch"' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
>
> So shouldn't all words that are actually searched on be present
> in a particular order?
Ok, sorry.
If the original query is '"16-b
Sergei, but this is a phrase search. The original query is:
match (keywords) against ('"16-bit Touch"' IN BOOLEAN MODE)
So shouldn't all words that are actually searched on be present
in a particular order?
Bill
Sergei Golubchik wrote:
Hi!
On Feb 27, Haitao Jiang wrote:
Thanks! That was wh
Hi!
On Feb 27, Haitao Jiang wrote:
>
> Thanks! That was what I guessed. But how to explain
> "16-bit Touch" doesn't match records with "32-bit
> Touch" in the keywords? It just returned all the
> records with "16-bit Touch", i.e. "16-bit" seems does
> count.
Because the presense of "16-bit" subs
Thanks! That was what I guessed. But how to explain
"16-bit Touch" doesn't match records with "32-bit
Touch" in the keywords? It just returned all the
records with "16-bit Touch", i.e. "16-bit" seems does
count.
Thanks again!
Haitao
--- Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It's expected
It's expected behavior, not a bug.
"16-bit Touch" is parsed as "16", "bit" and "touch". The first two are
ignored because they are too short. So, this searches for rows with
"touch", then selects the ones which contain your phrase.
"16-bit" contains no words to search for, so it returns nothi
Could anyone explain why
match (keywords) against ('"16-bit Touch"' IN BOOLEAN
MODE)
returns results, but not
match (keywords) against ('"16-bit"' IN BOOLEAN MODE)?
Is it a known bug?
Thanks a lot!
Haitao
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Y
