Dr Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>> Actually, do we even need the alwaysMatches index? We can do this
>>> with:
>>> cql.anyField = "*"
>
>
>> _If_ we accept the searching-for-"*" approach, then I agree that we
>> don't need a special index.  However, as this is clearly a
>> special-case search, I would be much more comfortable having it
>> provoked by a special-case query that spells out precisely what's
>> wanted.  Apart from anything else, it's more likely to get implemented
>> that way.
>
>
> Well, I think that "*" as a term is pretty obviously 'any value'.  That is
> identical in semantics to what you wanted, right?

* is masking. For some fields masking does not make sense. Year, ranges
and such. It would be very special that "1*" does not work or "*1" but
"*" does.. The semantics for when it works or when it doesn't is weird.
It would have to be treated as a specil case on the server.. But if I
want to test my server for "full truncation" I no longer have a test
case, since obvioulsy * is special and does not _really_ do "full
truncation".

/ Adam

>
> So for the non special indexes, I'm confident this is the right way to go,
> as the functionality is not in common usage.
>
> However for 'match all records', I'm happy for a special case as it is a
> commonly used subquery and much easier to perform than a regular anyField
> search.
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
> ,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
> ____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
> I L L U M I N A T I
>