Inurl View Index Shtml Motel Rooms 11
Mozell Gentges
A query request targets the documents collection of a single index on a search service. It includes parameters that define the match criteria, and parameters that shape the response. Starting in the 2021-04-30-Preview API version, you can also use an index alias to target a particular index instead of using the index name itself.
When called with GET, the length of the request URL can't exceed 8 KB. This length is usually enough for most applications. However, some applications produce large queries, specifically when OData filter expressions are used. For these applications, HTTP POST is a better choice because it allows larger filters than GET.
With POST, the number of clauses in a filter is the limiting factor, not the size of the raw filter string since the request size limit for POST is approximately 16 MB. Even though the POST request size limit is large, filter expressions can't be arbitrarily complex. For more information about filter complexity limitations, see OData Expression Syntax for Azure AI Search.
Remember to URL-encode specific query parameters when calling the GET REST API directly. For a Search Documents operation, URL-encoding might be necessary for the following query parameters:
Also, URL encoding is only necessary when calling the REST API directly using GET. No URL encoding is necessary when using POST, or when using the Azure AI Search .NET client library, which handles encoding for you.
Sometimes Azure AI Search can't return all the requested results in a single Search response. This can happen for different reasons, such as when the query requests too many documents by not specifying $top or specifying a value for $top that is too large. In such cases, Azure AI Search includes the @odata.nextLink annotation in the response body, and also @search.nextPageParameters if it was a POST request. You can use the values of these annotations to formulate another Search request to get the next part of the search response. This is called a continuation of the original Search request, and the annotations are generally called continuation tokens. See the example in Response below for details on the syntax of these annotations and where they appear in the response body.
The reasons why Azure AI Search might return continuation tokens are implementation-specific and subject to change. Robust clients should always be ready to handle cases where fewer documents than expected are returned and a continuation token is included to continue retrieving documents. Also note that you must use the same HTTP method as the original request in order to continue. For example, if you sent a GET request, any continuation requests you send must also use GET (and likewise for POST).
A query accepts several parameters on the URL when called with GET, and as JSON properties in the request body when called with POST. The syntax for some parameters is slightly different between GET and POST. These differences are noted as applicable below.
Notice the last facet is on a subfield. Facets count the parent document (Hotels) and not intermediate subdocuments (Rooms), so the response determines the number of hotels that have any rooms in each price bucket.
In a faceted search, set an upper limit on unique terms returned in a query. The default is 10, but you can increase or decrease this value using the count parameter on the facet attribute. This example returns facets for city, limited to 5.
Search the Index across multiple fields. For example, you can store and query searchable fields in multiple languages, all within the same index. If English and French descriptions coexist in the same document, you can return any or all in the query results:
Search the index assuming there's a scoring profile called "geo" with two distance scoring functions, one defining a parameter called "currentLocation" and one defining a parameter called "lastLocation". In the following example, "currentLocation" has a delimiter of a single dash (-). It's followed by longitude and latitude coordinates, where longitude is a negative value.
The use of searchMode=all overrides the default of searchMode=any, ensuring that -motel means "AND NOT" instead of "OR NOT". Without searchMode=all, you get "OR NOT" which expands rather than restricts search results, and this can be counter-intuitive to some users.
Find documents in the index using Lucene query syntax). This query returns hotels where the category field contains the term "budget" and all searchable fields containing the phrase "recently renovated". Documents containing the phrase "recently renovated" are ranked higher as a result of the term boost value (3)
Find documents in the index while favoring consistent scoring over lower latency. This query calculates document frequencies across the whole index, and makes a best effort at targeting the same replica for all queries within the same "session", which helps generate a stable and reproducible ranking.
A large motel in Atlanta refused to offer any of its 216 rooms to African-Americans even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly banned this practice by prohibiting racial discrimination in public places. Bringing a challenge to the constitutionality of the law under the Commerce Clause, motel owner Moreton Rolleston argued that this clause did not give Congress the power to enact such a sweeping law. He believed that he had the right as the owner of a business property to have control over operating his business, including the types of customers whom he would serve. There was also a more minor claim under the Thirteenth Amendment in which Rolleston asserted that he was subjected to involuntary servitude by being forced to rent parts of his property (motel rooms) to people whom he did not choose (African-Americans).
Justifying the law, the government stated that the Commerce Clause grants Congress broad authority over the channels and instrumentalities of interstate travel, which include motels. It interpreted the Thirteenth Amendment as being tied to the eradication of slavery and related social mechanisms, and it asserted that forcing Rolleston to offer motel rooms to African-Americans was not an unjusitfied taking of property.
The court reviewed Rolleston's claim in conjunction with a similar case involving a restaurant run by future Georgia Governor Lester Maddox, who also refused to serve African-Americans.
The majority essentially agreed with all of the government's arguments in an opinion signed by all but one of the Justices. Clark and his peers were somewhat incredulous that Rolleston attempted to use the Thirteenth Amendment to pursue a discriminatory objective, considering that it was implemented to fight discrimination. The Court also was easily persuaded that the Commerce Clause justified Congress in regulating the motel's operations, since it was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia. This showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power. The Court thus upheld the permanent injunction in one of the less contested of its landmark decisions.
During this era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, actions by the federal government under this power were upheld if they regulated an activity that affected more than one state and had a substantial overall effect on national commerce. Although this case was important and influential, coming early in the Civil Rights era, the arguments that Rolleston advanced were so dubious at face value that the outcome was never seriously in doubt.
Appellant, the owner of a large motel in Atlanta, Georgia, whichrestricts its clientele to white persons, three-fourths of whom aretransient interstate travelers, sued for declaratory relief and toenjoin enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, contending thatthe prohibition of racial discrimination in places of publicaccommodation affecting commerce exceeded Congress' powers underthe Commerce Clause and violated other parts of the Constitution. Athree-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of TitleII, 201(a), (b)(1) and (c)(1), the provisions attacked, and, onappellees' counterclaim, permanently enjoined appellant fromrefusing to accommodate Negro guests for racial reasons.
1. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exerciseof Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a placeof public accommodation serving interstate travelers. CivilRight Cases, 109 U. S. 3,distinguished. Pp. 379 U. S.249-262.
(b) The protection of interstate commerce is within theregulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether ornot the transportation of persons between States is "commercial."P. 379 U. S.256.
(c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which itfound racial discrimination has on interstate travel is notinvalidated because Congress was also legislating against what itconsidered to be moral wrongs. P. 379 U. S.257.
(d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation withregard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's moteleven if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, asCongress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulationof local incidents thereof which might have a substantial andharmful effect upon that commerce. P. 379 U. S.258.
b37509886e