Why isn't this just a proximity search? (Sorry, if the beginning of this
thread explained that.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: masking character for words
> Suppose we define a masking character meaning
> "mask zero or more words" (as opposed to '*' which
> means "mask zero or more characters")?
> Wouldn't that solve most of the index problem?
> It would take care of the "first word vs. first
> character" problem, and also eliminate the need
> for the "Word" indexes, meaning we would need only
> one index for each field.
> If this seems to be a good idea, someone suggest a
> character. I can add this to the 105 proposal
> (which is still out for comment, despite the fact
> that the date has passed).