Hi Stan
I would probably pull your other conditions in as attributes, so they can be
used for filters...
define_index do
# existing fields and attributes here
has active, start_date
has players.id, :as => :player_ids
has 'CRC32(parent_type)', :as => :parent_type
end
Note that a NULL parent_type will result in a CRC value of 0... so, our search
query can be all managed by Sphinx:
Feature.search "@(title, subtitle, description) '#...@search}'",
:match_mode => :extended,
:per_page => 50,
:with => {
:active => true,
:start_date => Time.at(0).to_date..this_day,
:player_ids => session[:hp_video_player_id],
:parent_type => [0, 'Doctor'.to_crc32]
Mind you, I've not tested this code, but it or something close to it should
probably work :)
Cheers
--
Pat
On 19/11/2010, at 3:47 PM, Stan Shore wrote:
> Thanks Pat. That did the job.
>
> Follow-up question. I'm using search_for_ids to get the ids that match and
> then inserting that into a sql statement that has some other conditions that
> further narrow down the list. I don't want to add the conditions to the
> index because sometimes I want all of the results or want to restrict the
> search with different conditions. The problem is that the result ends up
> sorted by the default sort on the table rather than in relevance order even
> though the ids are returned in relevance order. Is there anything that I can
> do to retain the relevance order?
>
> Here is my code:
>
> results = Feature.search_for_ids("@(title, subtitle, description)
> '#...@search}' ", :match_mode => :extended, :max_matches => 50, :per_page =>
> 50).compact.join(',')
> if results.blank?
> @features = []
> else
> sql = "select distinct"
> sql += ' f.id, f.title, f.subtitle, f.description'
> sql += " from features as f, features_players"
> sql += ' where features_players.feature_id = f.id'
> sql += " and f.active and f.start_date <= '#{this_day}' and
> features_players.player_id = #{session[:hp_video_player_id]}"
> sql += " and (f.parent_type = 'Doctor' or f.parent_type is null)"
> sql += " and f.id in (#{results})"
> @features = Feature.find_by_sql(sql)
> end
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Stan
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Stan
>
> I think the issue could be that you're requesting the :any match mode, but
> searching on specific fields requires :extended or :extended2. Indeed, when
> you use conditions, the match mode defaults to :extended.
>
> So, try removing your explicit match mode, see if that works a bit better.
>
> If you want *any* word to match in either of the fields, then what you may
> want to do is something like the following:
>
> Feature.search("@(title, subtitle) #...@search}", :match_mode => :extended,
> :max_matches => 50, :per_page => 50)
>
> That will make sure *all* query terms appear in *either* title or subtitle.
> If you want *any* of the query terms to appear in either title or subtitle,
> then you're going to need to break down @search and insert |'s (they act as
> ORs).
>
> require 'shellwords' # Part of Ruby Standard Library
> # ...
> @search = '(' + Shellwords.split(@search).collect { |word|
> "\"#{word}\""
> }.join(" | ") + ')'
>
> Shellwords respects quotes around multiple words - eg: 'foo "bar baz"'
> becomes ['foo', 'bar baz'].
>
> Have a read through the docs for the extended match mode, that should make
> things a bit clearer.
> http://www.sphinxsearch.com/docs/manual-0.9.9.html#matching-modes
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Pat
>
> On 19/11/2010, at 12:52 PM, stasch wrote:
>
> > I have a search box on my site which retrieves model instances that
> > contain the search term in any of three fields. Here is the code I am
> > using:
> >
> > results = Feature.search(:match_mode => :any, :conditions => { :title
> > => @search, :subtitle => @search, :description =>
> > @search }, :max_matches => 50, :per_page => 50)
> >
> > Where Feature is the name of the model and @search contains the search
> > term. I am getting rather peculiar results. If I have multiple
> > matches, I sometimes get an extra record that does not contain the
> > search term in any of the fields. It is always one of two records
> > which happen to be duplicates of each other. If I have no matches, I
> > just get one of the extra records.
> >
> > Is my syntax wrong or should I be looking for a corrupt index? How
> > would I fix the corrupt index if that is what's going on?
> >
> > Thanks for your help
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> >
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
