Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread Roger Binns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/26/2010 07:22 PM, Sam Carleton wrote: > I did this search: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=sqlite+text+search Thanks. I have updated the relevant wiki pages to say the information is old and to point to the current FTS3 implementation. >

Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread P Kishor
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Sam Carleton wrote: > Roger, > > I did this search: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=sqlite+text+search > > The top link points here: > > http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=FullTextIndex > > Thus I learned of FTS1 and FTS2, maybe

Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread Sam Carleton
Roger, I did this search: http://www.google.com/search?q=sqlite+text+search The top link points here: http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=FullTextIndex Thus I learned of FTS1 and FTS2, maybe things should be configured so that CVS isn't crawled by search engines ;) Sam On Wed, May 26, 2010

Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread P Kishor
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Roger Binns wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 05/26/2010 10:24 AM, Sam Carleton wrote: >> If I do opt to use FTS, which one should I be using, FTS1 or FTS2? >> According to the web site, it should be FTS1,

Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread Roger Binns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/26/2010 10:24 AM, Sam Carleton wrote: > If I do opt to use FTS, which one should I be using, FTS1 or FTS2? > According to the web site, it should be FTS1, correct? Just as a matter of interest what part of the web site led you to those

Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread Black, Michael (IS)
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2 On 26 May 2010, at 6:24pm, Sam Carleton wrote: > 212-456-7890 > 212-789-1234 > 212-564-9875 > 212-357-8452 > 212-285-6100 > 560-851-5522 > > If searching for a number with '56', I want to get back: 2

Re: [sqlite] FTS1 or FTS2

2010-05-26 Thread Simon Slavin
On 26 May 2010, at 6:24pm, Sam Carleton wrote: > 212-456-7890 > 212-789-1234 > 212-564-9875 > 212-357-8452 > 212-285-6100 > 560-851-5522 > > If searching for a number with '56', I want to get back: 212-4*56*-7890, > 212-*56*4-9875, and *56*0-851-5522, NOT 212-28*5-6*100. Is FTS the right >