 |
 |
"LeVan,Ralph" wrote: > 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 > >