Are there any limitations on the version of Riddle for 2.3? Any of the other gem dependencies?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stan > > Is there any chance you could create a basic test app that reproduces the > issue? I can't see any reason why the behaviour would be different, and > it's a bit hard to debug any further without access to either your app or a > test app that has the same problem. > > With regards to gem versions, you can't use anything that's 2.x or 3.x - > so, the latest that's friendly for Rails 2.3 is 1.5.0. > > -- > Pat > > On 12/10/2013, at 3:41 AM, Stan Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wanted to give you a little more info. I recreated this archived table > on my test server (I was originally working on my development machine) and > encountered the same results! The Thinking Sphinx version was the same, > the Sphinx version was different (2.0.9 on my dev machine, 0.9.9 on the > test server). I don't know that this info helps, but I just wanted you to > know. > > Regards, > > Stan > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Stan Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It doesn't get any simpler. The index definitions are identical: >> >> define_index do >> indexes :first_name, :sortable => true >> indexes :last_name, :sortable => true >> indexes :message >> >> has created_at >> has dist90038 >> >> where "type in >> ('ContactShow','DoctorContact','ProcedureRequest','TellUs')" >> >> end >> >> By the way, I tried removing the has statements and the where statement >> and reconfiguring and reindexing with the same results. Even if I try the >> simplest search: >> >> ContactInfo.search('worried') >> ContactArchive.search('worried') >> >> The first one works, the second one doesn't. >> >> Seems crazy but there it is. >> >> I'm wondering about versions. What gem version for Thinking Sphinx and >> Riddle should I be using for Rails 2.3.15? >> >> Regards, >> >> Stan >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Pat Allan <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Can you show us the index definitions for both models, and the queries >>> you're running? >>> >>> On 09/10/2013, at 4:28 AM, stasch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I've got two tables in the same database that are identical in structure >>> - columns, indexes, permissions (one is an archive of the other). The >>> model files are not identical but the associations and index declarations >>> are. The archive model contains a subset of the functionality of the >>> original, but I have already gone so far as to reduce the model file for >>> the archive to just the associations and index declarations. When I >>> rebuild the indexes after deleting all files in the index directory both >>> models are processed without complaint. The index files are created with >>> identical permissions. But when I do a simple search (for the word >>> 'worried') on each the original file returns many results, the archive file >>> returns no results. When I use the error method to check for errors on the >>> result set it returns nil. When I look in the query log it shows that the >>> query was successfully executed and returned 0 results. But when I do a >>> sql query on the indexed field in the archive file it returns over 3000 >>> results (select count(*) from contact_archive where message like '% worried >>> %'). >>> >>> My environment is Ruby 1.8.7, Rails 2.3.15 and Thinking Sphinx 1.4.10. >>> Any help would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/thinking-sphinx/tVmRxNDkM3M/unsubscribe >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Thinking Sphinx" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/thinking-sphinx/tVmRxNDkM3M/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
