On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:57:13AM -0700, William Bailey wrote:

> > Looks more like a database select than a full-text search.
> 
> To be honest i didn't have much luck when searching using a database it was 
> just too slow and too much of a resource hog. On even some of the more 
> complicated searches swish-e is still very fast and fulls the requirement 
> supriseingly well. Well done all :)

Interesting.  That might change if there were a few million records.

> > Each AND (including the default AND operator) and OR operation is a new
> > search.  So reducing the boolean searches would be good for speed.
> 
> At the moment the speed is not an issue and after the first search the results 
> are cached anyway. I agree that there ar a lot of boolean operations but this 
> is a side affect of haveing a number of different fields to search without 
> any field being required.

At the cost of a larger index, can you nest your fields:

<all>
  <title>...</title>
  <author>...</author>
</all>

then search all=foo to search both at the same time?
  
> > Are you using the md5 keys for exact matches?  We have talked about
> > setting flags on the first and last words indexed in a metaname so you
> > could do a phrase search for "Black Sabbath" where "Black" was the first
> > word indexed and "Sabbath" the last, i.e. the metaname is exactly "Black
> > Sabbath".
> 
> That is what i'm using that for. To be honest i just found a small bug that 
> was stripping "'s from being passed to swish. I was supposed to include the 
> quotes around black sabbath  as well as a few other fields.
> 
> IIRC i added the md5 search so that when searching for "Bush" the band called 
> 'Bush' would have a higher rank then 'Bush, Kate' or 'Bush Chemists'. It also 
> allows me to be very specific when searching for exact artists.

That's a nice trick!


-- 
Bill Moseley
moseley@hank.org