On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ralf Junker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Fair warning, though: It's not entirely clear that the fts search
>>syntax should aim to hew too closely to consumer-oriented search
>>syntax.
>
> Interesting point, too. Up to now, I always perceived the FTS search syntax to
>Fair warning, though: It's not entirely clear that the fts search
>syntax should aim to hew too closely to consumer-oriented search
>syntax.
Interesting point, too. Up to now, I always perceived the FTS search syntax to
be very much consumer-oriented. It it just too similar to major search engi
Scott Hess wrote:
> It's not entirely clear that the fts search syntax should aim to hew too
> closely to consumer-oriented search syntax.
Indeed, I would expect the FTS search syntax to optimize for the machine
model, while the user-facing syntax optimizes for human
comprehensibility, and the a
Interesting point. This seems like the kind of thing that could be
implemented in the existing fts codebase without involving a version
change. It also may be more general than just hyphenated words, for
instance $12.50 might be more usefully translated as the phrase search
"12 50" than all docum
Hello,
I have a small concern about the FTS negative term search syntax. Currently,
all terms following any minus sign ("-") are excluded from the search. This is
a very welcome feature, but consider searching for these hyphenated words:
Coca-Cola -> FTS finds Coca, but never Cola
low
5 matches
Mail list logo