Let's say I'm trying to search for 'Douglas' in any field. If I just do:
solr/query?q=Douglas
I get 0 responses, but if I do:
solr/query?q=firstname:Douglas
then I do get responses, why is this? I've also tried:
solr/query?q=Douglas&qf=firstname
which still gives me nothing. How do I just do a search for all fields? Then how do I 'boost' the relevancy of some fields? For example, if I search for Douglas, then people called Douglas should come up before items with the word 'Douglas' in their description.
You've got two concept mixed up here.
The default search goes against one field. That's the field defined by df (default field) parameter (not qf). So, solr/query?q=Douglas&df=firstname should have worked. Solr examples usually have text field set as default and copyField instructions to copy other fields into that. This works, but does not allow to use different analyzers for different fields. Nor does it allow ranking based on which field content is found in.
If you want to search multiple fields with different weights, you need to switch to dismax or edismax query parser. Then, you do use qf parameter to show which fields to search through.
You can experiment with all of that in the Solr Admin UI.
You have to use copyfield to copy your field into text to make it searchable. In default, all fields values which wanna searchable will copy into text field. You have to add a copy field as here or here
To add boosts at query time:
q=(firstname:douglas)^100 OR (body:douglas)^50 OR (someField:douglas)^25
Related
I ran into a problem with Semantic Mediawiki using the Page Forms extension.
I wanted to create a field in a Page Form, that can take more than one value. So I decided to use the tokens input type.
The problem is the following: If I type some values into the form field and save the page, Page Form puts all the values - seperated with commas - into one single SMW value.
For example: I have a form that will create a page about a scientific paper. And in this form I have a field that is called Authors. And when I fill the field with two Authors, lets say Pascal and Tesla, then the final page does not have the two SMW values [[Author::Pascal]] and [[Author::Tesla]] - It has the SMW value [[Author::Pascal, Tesla]].
Does anyone know, how I can achieve the mapping from different values in the form field to different values as SMW strings?
Thanks and greets,
J
Multiple values for the same field covers this.
Put the following in your corresponding template:
{{#arraymap:{{{Author|}}}|,|x|[[Author::x]]}}
I have a field with a customer ID that should be in the format of C0000000001, where it has a letter at the start and up to 10 numbers after the letter with leading zeros between the letter and the number. I want the users to be able to put in C1 and have the table save C0000000001 or C1234 and have the table save C0000001234.
I want the restriction to be on the hard data in the table. The table should contain the full customer ID but I only want the users to have to enter the C and the number of the customer when entering/searching for customers. I am using Access 2010.
I believe that the first character will always be a C, but either way, it would only be one alpha character if it wasn't.
I understand what you are saying, but the majority of the data (thousands of records) are going to be from another system that stores them that way. Doing it this way limits my margin of error. Otherwise, exports from the other system will need to be manually changed prior to being imported into the database and vice versa.
Searching would only be on existing records that will be saved in the C0000001234 format, but I would like user to be able to omit the leading zeros when entering the search criteria.
This question, combined with your previous question here, suggest to me that you are trying very hard to have the data structure in your Access database exactly match the legacy system from which you receive bulk updates. That may not be necessary, or even desirable.
For example, instead of maintaining the CustomerId as Text(11) (as in the old system) you could store it in your Access database as
CustomerIdPrefix: Text(1), and
CustomerIdNumber: Long Integer or perhaps Decimal if the numeric part really can exceed 2,147,483,647
Your Customers table in Access could also include a calculated field named CustomerId as
[CustomerIdPrefix] & Right("0000000000" & [CustomerIdNumber], 10)
to give you a single 'C0000012345' value for display purposes.
For searching, your form could have a Text Box for the Prefix (default value: 'C') and another text box for the numeric part. The search could then use a condition like
[CustomerIdPrefix] = txtPrefix.Value AND [CustomerIdNumber] = txtNumber.Value
or, if the user wanted to create a Filter on the Form (or Datasheet View) it would probably be sufficient to just filter on the number part.
If you ever needed to feed information back to the legacy system you could just export a query that includes the [CustomerId] calculated field (and omits [CustomerIdPrefix] and [CustomerIdNumber]) and you'd be fine.
My suggestion would be to use forms with associated queries using the FORMAT function.
You do need to clarify where you want this implemented, but I'm going to assume you have a table set up and that you would like to be able to enter/search data from a form.
I'll create one form for input frmAdd. For the input form, I created a query that would run when a button on the form was pressed. Add two text boxes newID and newOther to the forms which are unbounded but which the user can use to enter data. The query will then pull that data and append it to your table in an altered format. Here's the SQL for that query:
INSERT INTO Customers ( [Customer ID], [Other Field] )
SELECT Left([Forms]![frmAdd]![newID].[value],1)
& Format(Right([Forms]![frmAdd]![newID].[value],Len([Forms]![frmAdd]![newID].[value])-1),"0000000000")
AS Expr1, Forms![frmAdd]!newOther AS Expr2
FROM Customers;
I'm not sure exactly what search functionality you're looking for, but this query would pull up the record data matching that of a frmSearch with a textbox search which would have the format C### or whatever entered in:
SELECT Left([Customers].[Customer ID],1) & Replace(LTrim(Replace(Right([Customers].[Customer ID],9),'0',' ')),' ','0')
AS Expr1, Customers.[Other Field]
FROM Customers
WHERE (((Customers.[Customer ID])=Left([Forms]![frmSearch]![search].[value],1)
& Format(Right([Forms]![frmSearch]![search].[value],Len([Forms]![frmSearch]![search].[value])-1),"0000000000")));
Applying the input mask is just a way to ensure that your data is correct. If you feel the need to use one, go to the table in Design View and click on the Data Type box for the customer ID field. Find Input Mask under Field Properties -> General and click it. Then hit go to the toolbar -> Design tab -> Builder. This will walk you through it.
Input mask is not the answer for this. Input mask forces the user to input the data in a certain manner. What you need is some VBA code to run in the AfterUpdate event on a form. There's no way within the table to force the data into this pattern allowing the input method that you've requested.
There may be a more efficient way to do this, but this does the job.
http://pineboxsolutions.com/access/customeriddemo.accdb
Users of a report have requested the ability to be able to manually enter a code, currently they are are presented a multiselect with all the codes related to the previous parameters.
This is in Report Builder 3.
This multiselect can become quite long so I thought another approach would be a searchable multiselect. Is this possible in any: way, shape, or form?
Could I allow for a cascading parameter (which is the code) to be either selected either through manual typing or another means.
I would add a type-in text parameter (lets call it Search_Code), with a default of % (assuming your data source is SQL).
Then in the data source for the Code list, I would add to the WHERE clause e.g.
WHERE Code LIKE '%' + #Search_Code + '%'
This will restrict the Code list to strings which partially match the Search_Code value (if entered).
I am trying to add an optional filter on a text field in a report. I have tried setting it up in the dataset but it treats it as a required filter so if it is not populated, no results are returned. It needs to use the Like operator. Any advice?
As I was typing out a work-around to this problem, I realized an incredibly easy solution (now that I understand better how it works).
Here's what I did:
Since Hong pointed out that all filter conditions must be met, I reversed my thinking. I moved my existing "IN" filters to the query and fed the parameter directly to the query. Then I created by "LIKE" text filter on the report which a default value of "*" so it would immediately return everything.
Here's what I could've done:
Just the last part. Added the "LIKE" filter with a default value of "*" so it immediately returned everything.
I also agree that most of the time it's best to send the params back to SQL. Since that's not what the OP is asking, here is the best option I have found for doing this. And it is actually quite simple.
Add your parameter with the appropriate data type. Let's use the
example of a "City" in this case (a text/string field).
Check "Allow Nulls" on the parameter.
Add a filter to either a tablix, table or dataset.
In the expression, select the field you want to filter on. Select the appropriate operator, in my example of a data set with Cities, in the Value put in this:
=IIF((Parameters!City.Value Is Nothing), Fields!City.Value, Parameters!City.Value)
I don't think you can make an optional filter in DataSet Properties/Filters, adding filters there means returning results that match ALL filter contiditions, so it is "AND" logical relation among all filters, not "OR".
My sugguestion is to use filter in query designer of the dataset, where you can define "OR" relations to filter out data. For instance: Your_Text_Field="SomeValue" OR Your_Text_Field is Empty.
Although I agree that most of the time it is best to send the parameters back to the stored procedure or data layer to reduce the amount of data returned, I have a case where it is just as easy to do the parameter handling in the RDL file via a filter. Due to this unique situation I found this solution which gives you a way to create an Optional filter in the RDL file.
http://www.andrewshough.com/development/sqlserver/ssrs/optional-filter-in-ssrs/
It is a great blog post with easy step by step instructions on how to create an optional filter.
Please Note: This is NOT my blog but I though this solution was great for what I needed and I hope it helps someone else when they google for "optional filter in SSRS" like I did.
I found a post which solved my problem setting the filter for a report-consumer to a) all multivalue fields being selected so the user b) could specify his/her selection if necessary.
Kasim 8 Dec 2010 8:55 AM #
In reports when we want to default the multivalue parameter to 'Select All' following are the steps.
Open the Report parameter window from the Report menu.
Select the Report parameter from the left handside of the window.
Select 'Multi-value' checkbox and appropriate 'Available values'.
Under default values select 'From Query' radio button'.
Select the appropriate 'Dataset'.
Select appropriate 'Value Field'.
Save the Report and select Preview Tab. You will find all the items selected in the multivalue >parameter list and the result displayed for all the selected items.
found on: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/bimusings/archive/2007/05/07/how-do-you-set-select-all-as-the-default-for-multi-value-parameters-in-reporting-services.aspx
(The Post came up in the comments quite in the middle.)
You can accomplish this by using an expression on the dataset filter.
Check this
People have different ideas of how to search for the same term.
For example Tri-Valley, Trivalley, Tri Valley (and possibly even incorrect spellings)
Currently that search is done like this
SELECT * FROM `table` WHERE `SchoolDistrict` LIKE '%tri valley%';
Is there an easy way to say 'space dash or no space' without writing out three like statements?
It seems like it could easily be done:
SELECT * FROM `table` WHERE `SchoolDistrict` LIKE '%tri%valley%';
But this only works if the initial input is 'tri-valley' or 'tri valley' If the initial input is 'trivalley' I have no idea where to place the % (theoretically that is, actually, I do, as we are only looking at about a dozen different school districts, but I'm looking to solve the larger problem)
You could consider using SOUNDEX, or SOUNDS LIKE if you have a lot of incorrect spellings. If you've got a lot of rows (or even if you don't), it might be wise to store the output of the SOUNDEX in an additional column.
I'd also recommend -- in the interests of accuracy -- introducing a separate table with an authoritative list of school districts, and run a query to find those which aren't in that list.
MySQL has a function called Sounds like.
link text
An alternative here is to recast the problem from search to select, if possible. Instead of letting your users enter free-form text to choose a school district, if you have a set of school districts generate a dropdown (or set of cascading dropdowns if the list is large, say by county, then by school district) and allow the user to select the appropriate one. Use this both for "searching" and for data entry to eliminate non-canonical entries. Obviously this only works when you can enumerate all of the entries.
Alternatively you could allow the user to choose a starts with or contains type search and simply generate the appropriate SQL ('tri%' or '%tri%') based on the selected search type. If the user understands that the search type is starts with or contains, they will likely adjust their search string until it yields the results they need.
The second statement you posted should do the trick:
SELECT * FROM 'table' WHERE 'SchoolDistrict' LIKE '%tri%valley%';
What you should do before you pass the search term into the select statement is to replace all characters and spaces with the % sign. For example,
SearchTerm = SearchTerm.Replace(" ","%");