Hi Karl, Danny mentioned another alternative in an earlier response which I think might be of interest to you. Searchable expressions allow you to explicitly select one subpath within documents, but you could also use element queries. I must warn that it will not have the exact same behaviour, but I have the impression that it should work for you, and I think it allows you to do your grouped-constraints query (just giving the beast some name) in one single search, without additional-queries etc.
An element query takes the name of an element and a subquery. This subquery is constrained to the descendants of the element. So if you would supply and and-query as subquery, all these subqueries would be constrained to that element. It would require that the element names to which you want to constrain your searches should have some degree of uniqueness in the complete document, and shouldn't occur recursively. It would still work in those cases, but perhaps not in the way you would like. You can also wrap element queries in other element queries, but not that the inner element doesn't need to be the child, it can also be a descendant further down the hierarchy.. Hope this helps.. Kind regards, Geert > drs. G.P.H. (Geert) Josten Consultant Daidalos BV Hoekeindsehof 1-4 2665 JZ Bleiswijk T +31 (0)10 850 1200 F +31 (0)10 850 1199 mailto:[email protected] http://www.daidalos.nl/ KvK 27164984 P Please consider the environment before printing this mail. De informatie - verzonden in of met dit e-mailbericht - is afkomstig van Daidalos BV en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onbedoeld hebt ontvangen, verzoeken wij u het te verwijderen. Aan dit bericht kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Karl Erisman > Sent: dinsdag 6 april 2010 23:26 > To: General Mark Logic Developer Discussion > Subject: [MarkLogic Dev General] Re: Separate > searchable-expressions for different constraints? > > Okay, it sounds like you have the basic idea of what I'm > considering doing. My example had only two different > sections to search over, but in reality there could be N such > sections. I think you meant to suggest using > <additional-query> with cts:document-query, not > cts:directory-query. That is helpful; I was also planning on > multiple queries, but your suggestion of using > additional-query will make things easier. > > The data could be modeled in a different way make this > simpler, but there are trade-offs and I'm still weighing > different data modeling approaches. > > Thanks again, > Karl > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://xqzone.com/mailman/listinfo/general > _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://xqzone.com/mailman/listinfo/general
