: eg. "rowling goblet of fire" - need to match rowling in 1 field &
: "goblet of fire in another
: "hilary duff most wanted" - need to match "hilary duff" in 1 field &
: "most wanted" in another
: > Why not just index those separate fields into the yet a third field and
: > search there?
: >
: >
On 10/19/06, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the use case you're trying to solve? It doesn't make sense to me
that you want to take a query from a user and split it over fields under the
covers.
Well I am planning on doing exactly that, given that we have seen some
amount of u
What is the use case you're trying to solve? It doesn't make sense to me
that you want to take a query from a user and split it over fields under the
covers.
Why not just index those separate fields into the yet a third field and
search there?
Or why not just put it all into one field in the fir
Resending, with the hope that the search gurus missed this.
Would really appreciate any advise on this.
Would not want to reinvent the wheel & I am sure this is something
that would have been done.
Thanks,
mek
On 10/16/06, Mek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone dealt with the problem of con
Has anyone dealt with the problem of constructing sub-queries given a
multi-word query ?
Here is an example to illustrate what I mean:
user queries for -> A B C D
right now I change that query to "A B C D" A B C D to give phrase
matches higher weightage.
What might happen though, is that the us
