On 2014-10-09, 7:32 AM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
Got it, thanks for the explanation. Just to make sure that I
understand you correctly, is the clause MATCH '*l0l* *h4x*' getting
translated to MATCH 'l0l* h4x*'?
Yes, that's right.
Dan.
In that case, shouldn't the test in the original post have
On 10/09/2014 07:23 PM, Sohail Somani wrote:
On 2014-10-09, 7:32 AM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
Got it, thanks for the explanation. Just to make sure that I
understand you correctly, is the clause MATCH '*l0l* *h4x*' getting
translated to MATCH 'l0l* h4x*'?
Yes, that's right.
Dan.
In that case,
On 2014-10-09, 11:09 AM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
On 10/09/2014 07:23 PM, Sohail Somani wrote:
On 2014-10-09, 7:32 AM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
Got it, thanks for the explanation. Just to make sure that I
understand you correctly, is the clause MATCH '*l0l* *h4x*' getting
translated to MATCH 'l0l* h4x*'?
On 2014-10-07, 4:04 PM, Dan Kennedy wrote:
On 10/08/2014 01:52 AM, Sohail Somani wrote:
Figured it out: match terms should be l0l* h4x* NOT *l0l* *h4x*,
though it did work as expected with the older version. I'd suggest
keeping the old behaviour unless there is a performance-based reason
not
Figured it out: match terms should be l0l* h4x* NOT *l0l* *h4x*,
though it did work as expected with the older version. I'd suggest
keeping the old behaviour unless there is a performance-based reason not to.
On 2014-10-07, 2:49 PM, Sohail Somani wrote:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t_fts WHERE t_fts
On 10/08/2014 01:52 AM, Sohail Somani wrote:
Figured it out: match terms should be l0l* h4x* NOT *l0l* *h4x*,
though it did work as expected with the older version. I'd suggest
keeping the old behaviour unless there is a performance-based reason
not to.
On 2014-10-07, 2:49 PM, Sohail Somani
