On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
> Yes - but my interpretation of cql.serverchoice Tolkien is that there is
> some non wildcard CQL index available such that I can issue both
I don't see why that's necessarily so?
The definition is, currently:
This is the default when the index and relation is omitted from a search
clause. 'cql.serverChoice' means that the server will choose an index
for the given term. The relation used is 'scr', hence 'cql.serverChoice scr
"term"' is an equivalent search clause to '"term"'.
In Ralph's case he chooses an index that you can't otherwise choose.
> Actually having written than, why isn't what you are doing an anyKnown
> search (in that BasicIndex is an index not accessible by CQL?)
This is the reason I'd rather have them allKnown as opposed to anyKnown --
because that index searches everywhere known, not just one known index.
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
|