search = request.form.get("search")
book = db.execute("SELECT * FROM books WHERE title = :search OR author = :search OR isbn = :search OR title LIKE :search",{"search": search}).fetchall()
This is a portion of my function. I want the user to be able to search for a book and store their result in "search", and I want to be able to pull any results from the database list that at least has the "search" even if the title isn't complete. Example, if the user is looking for a book titled "the fisherman" but the user only types in "the fisher" I want the query to be able to pull "the fisherman".
book = db.execute(text("SELECT * FROM books WHERE title LIKE :search"),
{"search": f"%{search}%"}).fetchall()
The error was in my dictionary. To have a variable that the user inputs to be looked up using '% %' must be modified within the dictionary.
Related
I want to retrieve the DOI for a combination of a title, the first author, and the year. I wanted to use the query method, but there is no date or year filed in it. It also does not allow me to use a title. Here is the example article I want to get its DOI:
title: "The generic name Mediocris (Cetacea: Delphinoidea: Kentriodontidae),
belongs to a foraminiferan"
author : Mark D Uhen
Year: 2006
I tried this but it failed (although I could not find any filed name for the year):
last_name='Uhen'
title = 'The generic nameMediocris (Cetacea: Delphinoidea: Kentriodontidae), belongs to a foraminiferan'
q = works.query(author=last_name, title = title)
Here is the error I got:
UrlSyntaxError: Field query title specified but there is no such field query for this route. Valid field queries for this route are: affiliation, author, bibliographic, chair, container_title, contributor, editor, event_acronym, event_location, event_name, event_sponsor, event_theme, funder_name, publisher_location, publisher_name, translator
I appreciate any help!
Thanks
In the browser, the link would be:
https://api.crossref.org/works?query.author=Uhen&query.bibliographic=The%20generic%20name&filter=from-pub-date:2006-01-01,until-pub-date:2006-12-31
(I don't know what software you are using, but it might be one step towards a solution to change the field name title to bibliographic)
This question is related to Neo4j databases. Suppose I have a relationship (employee)-[WORKS-IN]->(company).. Imagine an employee works in multiple companies. I should be able to find the companies that a specific employee is working using full text search in neo4j. I'll be searching from the users name and I should be able to return company nodes..how to do that??
Full text search must be used.
So you want to search for a Person by name with full text and then retrieve the companies he worked for.
Compare this easily with the default Movies graph in Neo4j, you want to search for a Person by name with full text and then retrieve the movies the person acted in .
CALL db.index.fulltext.queryNodes('Person', 'kea*')
YIELD node
MATCH (node)-[:ACTED_IN]->(movie)
RETURN node.name, movie.title
This is an example when I created this node:
CREATE (e:Employee {name: 'Nirmana Testing'})
Then create the full text index on Employee.name
CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX employeeNameIdx FOR (e:Employee) ON EACH [e.name]
Then run a query using this full text index. Noted that the keyword 'nirmana' can be upper case or any case.
CALL db.index.fulltext.queryNodes("employeeNameIdx", "nirmana") YIELD node as employee
MATCH (employee)-[:WORKS-IN]->(company:Company)
RETURN employee, company
reference:
https://neo4j.com/docs/cypher-manual/current/indexes-for-full-text-search/
Thank you very much. Sorted it out. And one more thing. Suppose for a particular worker there can be various relationships except [WORKS-IN] , such as [PART TIME WORKER] , [FREELANCER], [PROJECT MANAGER] and so on. So for a particular user, If we want to find the place or company that he is working, freelancing, managing projects by searching the relationship type how could it be done using full text search.
I'm using Entity Framework with a SQL Express database and now I have to make a search function to find users based on a value typed in a textbox, where the end user just can type in everything he wants (like Google)
What is the best way to create a search function for this. The input should search all columns.
So for example, I have 4 columns. firstname,lastname,address,emailaddress.
When someone types in the searchbox foo, all columns need to be searched for everything that contains foo.
So I thought I just could do something like
context.Users.Where(u =>
u.Firstname.Contains('foo') ||
u.Lastname.Contains('foo') ||
u.Address.Contains('foo') ||
u.EmailAddress.Contains('foo')
);
But... The end user may also type in foo bar. And then the space in the search value becomes an and requirement. So all columns should be searched and for example firstname might be foo and lastname can be bar.
I think this is to complex for a Linq query?
Maybe I should create a search index and combine all columns into the search index like:
[userId] [indexedValue] where indexedValue is [firstname + " "+ lastname + " "+ address +" " + emailaddress].
Then first split the search value based on spaces and then search for columns that have all words in the search value. Is that a good approach?
The first step with any project is managing expectation. Find the minimum viable solution for the business' need and develop that. Expand on it as the business value is proven. Providing a really flexible and intelligent-feeling search capability would of course make the business happy, but it can often not do what they expect it to do, or perform to a standard that they need, where a simpler solution would do what they need, be simpler to develop and execute faster.
If this represents the minimum viable solution and you want to "and" conditions based on spaces:
public IQueryable<User> SearchUser(string criteria)
{
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(criteria))
return new List<User>().AsQueryable();
var criteriaValues = criteria.Split(' ');
var query = context.Users.AsQueryable();
foreach(var value in criteriaValues)
{
query = query.Where(u =>
|| u.Firstname.Contains(value)
|| u.Lastname.Contains(value)
|| u.Address.Contains(value)
|| u.EmailAddress.Contains(value));
}
return query;
}
The trouble with trying to index the combined values is that there is no guarantee that for a value like "foo bar" that "foo" represents a first name and "bar" represents a last name, or that "foo" represents a complete vs. partial value. You'd also want to consider stripping out commas and other punctuation as someone might type "smith, john"
When it comes to searching it might pay to perform a bit more of a pattern match to detect what the user might be searching for. For instance a single word like "smith" might search an exact match for first name or last name and display results. If there were no matches then perform a Contains search. If it contains 2 words then a First & last name match search assuming "first last" vs. "last, first" If the value has an "#" symbol, default to an e-mail address search, if it starts with a number, then an address search. Each detected search option could have a first pass search (expecting more exact values) then a 2nd pass more broad search assumption if it comes back empty. There could be even 3rd and 4th pass searches available with broader checks. When results are presented there could be a "more results..." button provided to trigger a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. pass search if the returned results didn't return what the user was expecting.
The idea being when it comes to searching: Try to perform the most typical, narrow expected search and allow the user to broaden the search if they so desire. The goal would be to try and "hit" the most relevant results early, helping mold how users enter their criteria, and then tuning to better perform based on user feedback rather than try and write queries to return as many possible hits as possible. The goal is to help users find what they are looking for on the first page of results. Either way, building a useful search will add complexity of leverage new 3rd party libraries. First determine if that capability is really required.
so basically I am making a student database that contains student grades, I have a query that gives me a list of what classes a specific student has taken that are part of their major.
This is what the query returns:
Query result
So what I want to do is create a report that has a section like this where it lists all possible classes they can taken per that major:
Report
and I want to have a checkbox next to each class and have the box be checked off if they have taken the class, if they have not I want the box to be empty, so I don't necessarily need anything on the report like grades etc. I just want it checked off if they have taken that specific class . How can I go about this, lost on this part.
Although more information may be required to answer your question correctly, I'll give this a shot:
Assuming your the check box in question is called "Check1" and the table in question is called "Table1" and the field is called "Test" and the Report you mentioned is a form called "Report"... AND its only on the table when it has been completed.
Something to the effect of an "On Load" command into the form like:
If Not IsNull(DLookup("Class_UID", "Table1", "Class_UID = 'INF-202'")) Then
Forms("Report").Check1.Value = 1
End If
Of course, this would need to be added for each unique Class_UID
It's a simplistic way to do it, but far from the only option.
The title is a bit awkward but I couldn't found a better one. My problem is as follows:
I have several users stored as documents and I am storing several key-value-pairs or items (which have an id) for each document. Now, if I apply highlighting with hl.snippets=5 I can get the first 5 items. But every user could have several hundreds items, so
you will not get the most relevant 5 items. You will get the first 5 items ...
Another problem is that
the highlighted text won't contain the id and so retrieving additional information of the highlighted item text is ugly.
Example where items are emails:
user1 has item1 { text:"developers developers developers", id:1, title:"ms" }
item2 { text:"c# development", id:2, title:"nice!" }
...
item77 ...
user2 has item1 { text:"nice restaurant", id:3, title:"bla"}
item2 { text:"best cafe", id:4, title:"blup"}
...
item223 ...
Now if I use highlighting for the text field and query against "restaurant" I get user2 and the text nice <b>restaurant</b>. But how can I determine the id of the highlighted text to display e.g. the title of this item? And what happens if more relevant items are listed at the end of the item-list? Highlighting won't display those ...
So how can I find the best items of a documents with multiple such items?
I added my two findings as answers, but as I will point out each of them has its own drawbacks.
Could anyone point me to a better solution?
One of my rules of thumb for designing Solr schemas is: the document is what you will search for.
If you want to search for 'items', then these 'items' are your documents. How you store other stuff, like 'users', is secondary. So 'users' could be in another index like you mentioned, they could be "denormalized" (e.g. their information duplicated in each document), in a relational database, etc. depending on RDBMS availability, how many 'users' there are, how many fields these 'users' have, etc.
EDIT: now you explain that the 'items' are emails, and a possible search is 'restaurant X' and you want to find the best 'items' (emails). Therefore, the document is the email. The schema could be as simple as this: (id, title, text, user).
You could enable highlighting to get snippets of the 'text' or 'title' fields matching the 'restaurant X' query.
If you want to give the end-user information about the users that wrote about 'restaurant X', you could facet the 'user' field. Then the end-user would see that John wrote 10 emails about 'restaurant X' and Robert wrote 6. The end-user thinks "This John dude must know a lot about this restaurant" so he drills down into a search by 'restaurant x' with a filter query user:John
You could use use two indices: users->items as described in the question and an index with 'pure items' referencing back to the user.
Then you will need 2 queries (thats the reason I called the question '2d Search in Solr'):
query the user index => list of e.g. 10 users
query the items index for each user of the 1. step => best items
Assume the following example:
userA emails are "restaurant X is bad but restaurant X is cheap", "different topic", "different topicB" and
userB emails are "restaurant X is not nice", "revisited restaurant X and it was ok now", "again in restaurant X and I think it is the best".
Now I query the user index for "restaurant X" and the first user will be userB, which is what I want. If I would query only the item-index I would get the item1 of less relevant userA.
Drawbacks:
bad performance, because you will need one query against the user index and e.g. 10 more to get the most relevant items for each user.
maintaining two indices.
Update to avoid many queries I will try the following: using the user index to get some highlighted snippets and then offering a 'get relevant items'-button for every user which then triggers a query against the item index.
You can use the collapse patch and store each item as separate document linking back to the user.
The problem of that approach is that you won't get the most relevant user. Ie. the most relevant item is not necessarily from the most relevant user (because he can have several slightly less relevant items)
See the "Assume the following example:" part in my second answer.