 |
 |
Dr Robert Sanderson wrote: >>> Actually, do we even need the alwaysMatches index? We can do this >>> with: >>> cql.anyField = "*" > > >> _If_ we accept the searching-for-"*" approach, then I agree that we >> don't need a special index. However, as this is clearly a >> special-case search, I would be much more comfortable having it >> provoked by a special-case query that spells out precisely what's >> wanted. Apart from anything else, it's more likely to get implemented >> that way. > > > Well, I think that "*" as a term is pretty obviously 'any value'. That is > identical in semantics to what you wanted, right? * is masking. For some fields masking does not make sense. Year, ranges and such. It would be very special that "1*" does not work or "*1" but "*" does.. The semantics for when it works or when it doesn't is weird. It would have to be treated as a specil case on the server.. But if I want to test my server for "full truncation" I no longer have a test case, since obvioulsy * is special and does not _really_ do "full truncation". / Adam > > So for the non special indexes, I'm confident this is the right way to go, > as the functionality is not in common usage. > > However for 'match all records', I'm happy for a special case as it is a > commonly used subquery and much easier to perform than a regular anyField > search. > > > 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 >