> I _think_ the one remaining issue may be that of which context set the
> proposed new allUnderlyingIndexesIncludingThoseNotOtherwiseVisible

> The difficulties will be choosing the new index's name, and crafting
> the prose such that it makes a very clear distinction between the
> serverChoice, anywhere and allUnderlyingIndexesIncludingBlahBlahBlah
> indexes.

What we really want is, in order of largest to smallest.

anyField   (any field in the underlying data, indexed or not)
anyKnown   (any field indexed, not necessarily in CQL)
anyIndex   (any field with a CQL Index == current cql.anywhere)

?

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