Hi Karl,
> I have some reservations about using <additional-query> to
> stuff potentially-complicated logic involving the lower-level
> cts functions.
> First, the search:search documentation says that terms
> matching the <additional-query> are not highlighted in
> snippet result output. Does that mean I'd lose all
> highlighting since <additional-query> would be used to filter
> all matches?
I was actually suggesting not using additional-query nor searchable-expression,
but read on first please..
> I want to make sure I understand fully what you are
> suggesting, so let me give a generic example. My documents
> have "container elements"
> containing repeated sections. I must ensure that all
> constraints for a particular group in a given query are
> satisfied within a single section of the appropriate type.
> Imagine that the query is "a:x b:y"
> and that a and b belong to one "group" (this is a simple
> case; in reality there will be many groups to support and the
> query could involve several):
>
> <section1-container>
> <section1>
> <a>x</a>
> <b>u</b>
> </section1>
> <section1>
> <a>z</a>
> <b>y</b>
> </section1>
> </section1-container>
>
> Using an <additional-query> with:
> cts:element-query( 'section1-container',
> cts:element-query( 'section1', cts:and-query((
> cts:element-value-query('a', 'x'),
> cts:element-value-query('b', 'y')
> )) )
> )
>
> ...would the above document match? I'm posting this before
> trying it, but I do not want it to match.
Hmm, I don't think one big query is going to work unfortunately. To my
knowledge, the element-query constraints only look a the names of parents, not
at the real sharing of parents. That is what I meant with certain degree of
uniqueness. You can differentiate between section1 constraints and section2
constraints, but not between constraints on individual section1 elements.
On the other hand, if you use the searchable-expression to select section1
elements (like Danny suggested), then it should match the constraints within
each individual section1 element. It will likely involve filtering under the
hood to make it work, but at least it would work..
> To extend this to multiple groups, there would be several
> elements as siblings to <section1-container>. I would wrap
> the above in a cts;or-query and include additional
> element-queries for the siblings.
Well, I was indeed suggesting wrapping the big lot in an or-query or an
and-query, but we already determined that you will need the
searchable-expression, so no use bothering about it any longer..
> Is that what you'd recommend?
I hope it is clearer now how element queries can be helpful (and how not)..
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.
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://xqzone.com/mailman/listinfo/general
