> Ray, I read Joe's message differently than you do. I read it to mean that
> he wants the language to define truncation, not the indexes.
Yes, that's how I read it -- option 3 below. (Option 2 is included in the list
for completeness -- if you'll pardon the pun). --Ray
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:39 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: cql index definitions
> > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> > > I might be willing to give on Completeness and Position, but not on
> > > truncation. The users need a consistent set of truncation rules.
> > Ok, it's time we addressed Joe Zeeman's suggestion (see separately
> > forwarded message). Joe is suggestion that truncation be explicit in
> > the query syntax. How do we feel about that?
> > So there are three possibilities:
> > 1. Implicit truncation, as in the original rule where type 104 always
> > applies.
> > 2. Truncation defined as part of the index, as in the bath searches.
> > 3. Explicit truncation, expressed in the query string.
> > Note that if we go with either 1 or 3, we will have to
> > abandon the idea
> > of defining Bath searches.
> > --Ray