I'm using a FullTextSqlQuery in SharePoint 2007 (MOSS) and need to order the results by two columns:
SELECT WorkId FROM SCOPE() ORDER BY Author ASC, Rank DESC
However it seems that only the first column from ORDER BY is taken into account when returning results. In this case the results are ordered correctly by Author, but not by Rank. If I change the order the results will be ordered by Rank, but not by Author.
I had to resort to my own sorting of the results, which I don't like very much. Has anybody a solution to this?
Edit: Unfortunately it also doesn't accept expressions in the ORDER BY clause (SharePoint throws an exception). My guess is that even if the query looks like legitimate SQL it is parsed somehow before being served to the SQL server.
I tried to catch the query with SQL Profiler, but to no avail.
Edit 2: In the end I used ordering by a single column (Author in my case, since it's the most important) and did the second ordering in code on the TOP N of the results. Works good enough for the project, but leaves a bad feeling of kludgy code.
Microsoft finally posted a knowledge base article about this issue.
"When using RANK in the ORDER BY clause of a SharePoint Search query, no other properties should be used"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/970830
Symptom: When using RANK in the ORDER BY clause of a SharePoint Search query only the first ORDER BY column is used in the results.
Cause: RANK is a special property that is ranked in the full text index and hence cannot be used with other managed properties.
Resolution: Do not use multiple properties in conjunction with the RANK property.
Rank is a special column in MOSS FullTextSqlQuery that give a numeric value to the rank of each result. That value will be different for each query, and is relative to the other results for that particular query. Because of this rank should have a unique value for each result, and sorting by rank then author would be the same as just sorting by rank. I would try sorting on another column instead of rank to see if results come back as you expect, if so your trouble could be related to the way MOSS is ranking the results, which will vary for each unique query.
Also you are right, the query looks like SQL, but it is not the query actually passed to the SQL server, it is special Microsoft Enterprise Search SQL Query syntax.
I, too, am experiencing the same problem with FullTextSqlQuery and MOSS 2007 where only the first column in a multi-column "ORDER BY" is respected.
I entered this topic in the MSDN Forums for SharePoint Search, but have not received any replies:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sharepointsearch/thread/489b4f29-4155-4c3b-b493-b2fad687ee56
I have no experience in SharePoint, but if it is the case where only one ORDER BY clause is being honored I would change it to an expression rather than a column. Assuming "Rank" is a numeric column with a maximum value of 10 the following may work:
SELECT WorkId FROM SCOPE() ORDER BY AUTHOR + (10 - Rank) ASC
Related
I’m using ADODB to query on Sheet1. If I fetch the data using SQL query on the sheet as below without grouping I’m getting all characters from comment.
However, if I use grouping my characters are truncated to 255.
Note – My first row contains 800 len of characters so drivers have identified the datatype correctly.
Here is my query output without grouping
Select Product, Value, Comment, len(comment) from [sheet1$A1:T10000]
With grouping
Select Product, sum(value), Comment, len(comment) from [sheet1$A1:T10000] group by Product, Comment
Thanks for posting this! During my 20+ years of database development using ADO recordsets I had never faced this issue until this week. Once I traced the truncation to the recordset I was really scratching my head. Couldn't figure how/why it was happening until I found your post and you got me focused on the GROUP BY. Sure enough, that was the cause (some kind of ADO bug I guess). I was able to work around it by putting correlated scalar sub-queries in the SELECT list, vice using JOIN and GROUP BY.
To elaborate...
At least 9 times out of 10 (in my experience) JOIN/GROUP BY syntax can be replaced with correlated scalar subquery syntax, with no appreciable loss of performance. That's fortunate in this case since there is apparently a bug with ADO recordset objects whereby GROUP BY syntax results in the truncation of text when the string length is greater than 255 characters.
The first example below uses JOIN/GROUP BY. The second uses a correlated scalar subquery. Both would/should provide the same results. However, if any comment is greater than 255 characters these 2 queries will NOT return the same results if an ADODB recordset is involved.
Note that in the second example the last column in the SELECT list is itself a full select statement. It's called a scalar subquery because it will only return 1 row / 1 column. If it returned multiple rows or columns an error would be thrown. It's also known as a correlated subquery because it references something that is immediately outside its scope (e.emp_number in this case).
SELECT e.emp_number, e.emp_name, e.supv_comments, SUM(i.invoice_amt) As total_sales
FROM employees e INNER JOIN invoices i ON e.emp_number = i.emp_number
GROUP BY e.emp_number, e.emp_name, e.supv_comment
SELECT e.emp_number, e.emp_name, e.supv_comments,
(SELECT SUM(i.invoice_amt) FROM invoices i WHERE i.emp_number = e.emp_number) As total_sales
FROM employees e
I'm looking at a table (Table1) inside an Excel book saved on my OneDrive for Business account. I then want to get the maximum value in the CREATEDDATE column from this table.
I want to avoid pulling down the whole table with the API, so I'm trying to filter the results of my query to only the CREATEDDATE column. However, the column results from the table are not being filtered to the one column and I'm not getting an error to help troubleshoot why. All I get is an HTTP 200 response and the full unfiltered table results.
Is it possible to filter the columns retrieved from the API by the column name? The documentation made me think so.
I've confirmed that /columns?$select=name works correctly and returns just the name field, so I know that it recognizes this as an entity. $filter and $orderby do nothing when referencing any of the entities from the response (name, id, index, values). I know that I can limit columns by position, but I'd rather explicitly reference the column by name in case the order changes.
I'm using this query:
/v1.0/me/drive/items/{ID}/workbook/tables/Table1/columns?$filter=name eq 'CREATEDDATE'`
You don't need to $filter here, just pull it by the name directly. The prototypes from the Get TableColumn documentation are:
GET /workbook/tables/{id|name}/columns/{id|name}
GET /workbook/worksheets/{id|name}/tables/{id|name}/columns/{id|name}
So in your case, you should be able to simply call call:
/v1.0/me/drive/items/{ID}//workbook/tables/Table1/columns/CREATEDDATE
I am new to couchdb, i have looked at the docs and SO posts but for some reason this simple query is still eluding me.
SELECT TOP 10 * FROM x WHERE DATE BETWEEN startdate AND enddate ORDER BY score
UPDATE: It cannot be done. This is unfortunate since to get this type
of data you have to pull back potentially millions of records (a few
fields) from couch then do either filtering, sorting or limiting
yourself to get the desired results. I am now going back to my
original solution of using _changes to capture and store elsewhere the data i do need to perform that query on.
Here is my updated view (thanks to Dominic):
emit([d.getUTCFullYear(), d.getUTCMonth() + 1, d.getUTCDate(), score], doc.name);
What I need to do is:
Always sort by score descending
Optionally filter by date range (for instance, TODAY only)
Limit by x
Update: Thanks to Dominic I am much closer - but still having an
issue.
?startkey=[2017,1,13,{}]&endkey=[2017,1,10]&descending=true&limit=10&include_docs=true
This brings back documents between the dates sorted by score
However if i want top 10 regardless of date then i only get back top 10 sorted by date (and not score)
For starters, when using complex keys in CouchDB, you can only sort from left to right. This is a common misconception, but read up on Views Collation for a more in-depth explanation. (while you're at it, read the entire Guide to Views as well since you're getting started)
If you want to be able to sort by score, but filter by date only, you can accomplish this by breaking down your timestamp to only show the degree you care about.
function (doc) {
var d = new Date(doc.date)
emit([ d.getUTCFullYear(), d.getUTCMonth() + 1, d.getUTCDate(), score ])
}
You'll end up outputting a more complex key than what you currently have, but you query it like so:
startkey=[2017,1,1]&endkey=[2017,1,1,{}]
This will pick out all the documents on 1-1-2017, and it'll be sorted by score already! (in ascending order, simply swap startkey and endkey to get descending order, no change to the view needed)
As an aside, avoid emitting the entire doc as the value in your view. It is likely more efficient to leverage the include_docs=true parameter, and leaving the value of your emit empty. (please refer to this SO question for more information)
With this exact setup, you'd need separate views in order to query by different precisions. For example, to query by month you just use the year/month and so on.
However, if you are willing/able to sort your scores in your application, you can use a single view to get all the date precision you want. For example:
function (doc) {
var d = new Date(doc.date)
emit([ d.getUTCFullYear(), d.getUTCMonth() + 1, d.getUTCDate(), d.getUTCHour(), d.getUTCMinutes(), d.getUTCSeconds(), d.getUTCMilliseconds() ])
}
With this view and the group_level parameter, you can get all the scores by year, month, date, hour, etc. As I mentioned, in this case it won't be sorted by score yet, but maybe this opens up other queries to you. (eg: what users participated this month?)
Can we specify order of columns to be searched in solr?
For example my search string is : "Test"
Then my result should contain all rows matching column1 and then all rows matching column 2... Similar to union query in SQL.
I tried with custom search handler which will fire multiple requests to solr and then append to get final result.
But is there any other way to get this type of search using SOLR?
I am using solr-5.4.1.
Thanks
You could use eDismax and match on both fields (I assume you mean columns by that). Then, use boosting to prioritize the matches in the first field to rank higher.
As an easy example, you would search against field1^10 field2, where ^10 is the boost factor. If that works but is not perfect, you can look into the documentation for other methods to apply boost.
I've recently started experimenting with Solr. My data is indexed and searchable. My problem is in the sorting. I have three fields: Author, Title, Sales.
I would like to search against the author & title fields, but have the sales value influence the score so that matches with higher sales move toward the top, even if the initial match score is not the highest.
Simply sorting by sales does not produce valid results as a result with a near 0 score for the search term, but a lot of sales in general could end up above a perfect match for the term that has never been sold.
I am seeing results that, while great term matches, are not necessarily the product I want showing at the top of the list.
If you're using the dismax handler, you can add a boost function (bf) with the field you want to boost on, e.g.
http://...?q=foo&bf="fieldValue(sales)^1.5"
...to make the value of the sales figure give a bump. You can, of course, make the function more complex if you want to munge the sales data in some way.
More info is easily found.
You may also just want to do this at index time since the sales data isn't going to be changing on the fly.
You can also use Index-time boosting.
And here's detailed info on using function queries to influence scoring.