Searching questions?

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Where is that option set? It looks like a command line option. I normally just let the content server start via the GUI. I can change to command line startup, but can I set that option for GUI startup?

It is in the GUI. There are two spin boxes, one titled Max OPDS items per query and one titled Max OPDS ungrouped items per query. I assume that they have the same meaning as the command line options:

  --max-opds-items=MAX_OPDS_ITEMS
                        The maximum number of matches to return per OPDS
                        query. This affects Stanza, WordPlayer, etc.
                        integration.

  --max-opds-ungrouped-items=MAX_OPDS_UNGROUPED_ITEMS
                        Group items in categories such as author/tags by first
                        letter when there are more than this number of items.
                        Default: 100. Set to a large number to disable
                        grouping.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

It is in the GUI.

That's stupid of me - I could have just checked - sorry to have bothered you. Apparently I haven't looked in the content server area of Preferences in a long time, and it's either been introduced since I last looked, or I just didn't recall seeing it.

Damn - Calibre changes so fast it's hard to keep track of all the cool features. I just start thinking I've got a handle on it and I find something new. I found two new things, just today, not to mention the new code you added for me today and yesterday relating to #foo_index searching and content server display.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

A thought: I don't think it would be hard (more than an hour of work) to add searching of the form #foo*:query, where #foo* means any custom field beginning with foo.

Charles,
I've been entering more data into #award and find the duplicate awards problem more and more annoying. I hate to ask, but since you have indicated a willingness, I would find this feature to be very valuable.

I hesitate to ask, as I'm not sure if others would find it to be useful, and I do have some workarounds. Still, I would like it.

For the record, the best workaround for books that had multiple awards was to copy the entire book record - Add a blank book, then Merge-keep others to get a duplicate record, then change the #award column to the second award. It was less than perfect, however.

If you get the time ....
In advance - Thanks.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Charles,
I've been entering more data into #award and find the duplicate awards problem more and more annoying. I hate to ask, but since you have indicated a willingness, I would find this feature to be very valuable.

I hesitate to ask, as I'm not sure if others would find it to be useful, and I do have some workarounds. Still, I would like it.

Have I got a deal for you.

Download the trunk and look at the tweak 'grouped_search_terms'. Let me know if a) you understand what it does (the documentation), and b) whether it works for you.

Thanks for any feedback!

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

Have I got a deal for you.

Download the trunk and look at the tweak 'grouped_search_terms'. Let me know if a) you understand what it does (the documentation), and b) whether it works for you.

Thanks for any feedback!

That's what I call Service, with a capital "S"!!!!

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

Let me know if a) you understand what it does (the documentation), and b) whether it works for you.

I'll check out operation tonight. I read the tweak description and it's clear. I did wonder at your second example:

# Example: two search terms 'a' and 'b' both that search 'tags' and '#mytags':
# grouped_search_terms={'a':['tags','#mytags'], 'b':['tags','#mytags']}

I wasn't sure why anyone would want two grouped search terms that did exactly the same thing. However it was clear.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Starson17

I did wonder at your second example. I wasn't sure why anyone would want two grouped search terms that did exactly the same thing. However it was clear.

I was trying to show how to create multiple search terms without complicating the issue by adding more custom fields. However, my choice of using the same fields may create more confusion than using different ones. Needs thought...

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

I was trying to show how to create multiple search terms without complicating the issue by adding more custom fields. However, my choice of using the same fields may create more confusion than using different ones. Needs thought...

I understood what you were showing, and it was clear, so I'd leave it.