 |
 |
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. Ralph > -----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 >