3. Too hard to say from the way you have described it. Show us some sample
input.
Jack,
Here you go.
*Row X*
column1: "data here"
column2: "more data here"
...
user_id: 2002
*Row Y*
column1: "data here"
column2: "more data here"
...
user_id: 45
*Row Z*
column1: "data here"
column2: "more data
I want to query against one user_id in the string.
eg user_id:2002+AND+created:[${from}+TO+${until}]+data:"more"
So all of the records with a 2002 in user_id need to be returned and only
those records. If this can only be guaranteed by having user_id be an
integer, then that is fine, but I woul
eg user_id:2002+AND+created:[${from}+TO+${until}]+data:"more"
Expected results: return row "XYZ" but ignore this row:
column1: "data here"
column2: "more data here"
...
user_id: "45 15001 45664"
> *Row X*
>
> column1: "data here"
> column2: "more data here"
> ...
> user_id: 2002
>
> *Row Y*
The unique key is an auto-incremented int in the db. Sorry for having
given the impression that user_id is the unique key per document. This is
a table of events that are happening as users interact with our system.
It just so happens that we were inserting individual records for each user
before
nts and your data model,
> including a clarification about user id vs. "a string of concatenated user
> id values", I can't answer your question definitively, other than "Maybe,
> depending on what you really mean by user id."
>
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
>
quot; so that a search
against it for "1442" will yield "exact" results? A search against "442"
wont match right?
1. "20 1442 35"
2. "20 442 35"
3. "20 1442"
user_ids:1442 -> yields #1 & #3 always?
user_ids:442 -> yields only #2 al
