Wildcard Searches

[Alan Dobkin]

Is it possible to do a wildcard or partial-word search using the built-in search action? Partial words are currently not found using the default search box. I also tried the URL conventions syntax, as well as *, %, and ?, but none of those seem to work.

Thanks,
Alan

[Steve Hannah]

Not with the "-search" parameter.  However you can perform partial searches on field searches.

From the search instructions in the old advanced find form (I need to add these to the new one... and I need to add this to the URL conventions page on the wiki.

To perform wildcard searches, prefix your query with a tilde ("~"), then include one of the supported wildcard characters in your query.

Supported Wildcards:

• % : Matches any string of length 0 or more characters.
• _ : Matches a single character.

Examples:

• "~J%y" will match only if the field value begins with "J" and ends with "y". E.g. It will match both "January" and "Joy", but not "Joyous" or "AJoy"
• "~B%" will match any rows where the field value begins with "B"
• "~B_b" will match any rows beginning and ending with "b" and is 3 characters long. This would match "bib" and "bob" but not "boob"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Xataface" group.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/xataface.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xataface/D67BC238-8E4A-4EB8-8A67-11A3227B54B8%40Gmail.com.

--

Steve Hannah

Web Lite Solutions Corp.

[Halsted Bernard]

Hi, Steve:

Is it possible to use a wildcard search to return all records that have no value in a field?

Kind regards,

Halsted

[Steve Hannah]

Yes.  Just search for "=".  This translates to an exact match for nothing.  The opposite search would be for "<", i.e. finds everything greater than nothing.

Steve

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xataface/2a195f0d-4ab6-45ba-a421-42f1cc27e6a2%40googlegroups.com.

[Halsted Bernard]

That worked. Thanks, Steve.

[Steve Hannah]

Sorry... second example should have been ">"  (not "<", because ">" is greater than and "<" is less than)

Steve

[Halsted Bernard]

Thanks for the clarification.