Heya Doug

Thanks for that patch - I've not yet had a moment to merge it in, but  
it seems like you're on the right track, although I may tweak it  
slightly.

Cheers

-- 
Pat

On 25/01/2009, at 1:33 PM, Doug wrote:

>
> Well that wasn't too bad.  I wrote a patch and sent you a pull
> request.  I don't have mysql installed here so I can't run those specs
> until monday, but I'll double check that I didn't break anything then.
> Doug
>
> On Jan 24, 8:28 pm, Doug <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'll take a stab at it, on first look though it looks like it'll take
>> some serious refactoringf.  Wish me luck! :)
>> Doug
>>
>> On Jan 24, 7:35 pm, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Doug
>>
>>> I don't think anyone's really paid attention to this before... so  
>>> it's
>>> not a known bug, but you're right, it should be fixed. MySQL will  
>>> very
>>> likely do the same thing, but everything's abstracted enough that  
>>> you
>>> won't be restructuring the raw SQL, but re-ordering method calls
>>> instead. If you want to have a go at making a patch, would love to  
>>> see
>>> it :)
>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>>> --
>>> Pat
>>
>>> On 25/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>> That's a mouthful, so I'll just show an example of what I mean:
>>
>>>>  define_index do
>>>>    indexes [:address, amenities.name], :as => :full_text
>>>>  end
>>
>>>> where amenities is some variety of has_many association.  In
>>>> postgresql this produces the following sql in the config file:
>>
>>>> array_to_string(array_accum(COALESCE("properties"."address", '')  
>>>> || '
>>>> ' || COALESCE("amenities"."name", '')), ' ')
>>
>>>> Which when run returns a string of the form: "address first_amenity
>>>> address second_amenity address third_amenity" which while function
>>>> ends up making a much larger index than is needed.  The correct SQL
>>>> would be:
>>
>>>> COALESCE("properties"."address", '') || ' ' || array_to_string
>>>> (array_accum(COALESCE("amenities"."name", '')), ' ')
>>
>>>> which returns: "address first_amenity second_amenity  
>>>> third_amenity",
>>>> what you'd expect.  I haven't tried this on Mysql, but it looks  
>>>> like
>>>> it might be doing the same thing.
>>
>>>> Has anyone else run into this?  Is it a known bug?  Can someone  
>>>> verify
>>>> that this does the same thing in mysql?  I'm happy to write up a
>>>> patch, but I wanted to make sure I was on the right track and no  
>>>> one
>>>> else is working on it right now.
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Doug
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Thinking Sphinx" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to