![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouI know there's a way to do it, but I'm not sure of that exact way, and I'm pretty sure whatever I come up with is gonna be so convoluted as to be worthless in the end. GAH.
Okay, someone on my flist has got to know this one: if I have a field in a MySQL db that contains an array (say, carrots, tomatoes, squash), I've no problem getting it in and no problem getting it out. (Mostly.) What I don't know is whether the search function to find that array again -- or any like it -- would require precision or could be relatively sloppy.
I mean, if I search for all fields that contain "carrots, tomatoes, squash," would I get back every field that has any of the three, or would I get back all fields with all three only if they're in the same order, or would I get back any in any order plus fields that also contain "kumquat"? (I've always treated arrays like some kinda black hole of SQL, where you put info in and it's only good as long as you don't try to do anything else with it...)
It comes down to not being sure whether I can preempt an existing db's design to insert arrays that I know I can later search/reproduce -- or if I'll need to create a new table and slot these things in separately. Unfortunately, the create-a-new-table operation would be even more hassle, given I've got to deal with WP's functions to get in and out of it, and they're not always quite as intuitive as I'd like.
So. Anyone?
Okay, someone on my flist has got to know this one: if I have a field in a MySQL db that contains an array (say, carrots, tomatoes, squash), I've no problem getting it in and no problem getting it out. (Mostly.) What I don't know is whether the search function to find that array again -- or any like it -- would require precision or could be relatively sloppy.
I mean, if I search for all fields that contain "carrots, tomatoes, squash," would I get back every field that has any of the three, or would I get back all fields with all three only if they're in the same order, or would I get back any in any order plus fields that also contain "kumquat"? (I've always treated arrays like some kinda black hole of SQL, where you put info in and it's only good as long as you don't try to do anything else with it...)
It comes down to not being sure whether I can preempt an existing db's design to insert arrays that I know I can later search/reproduce -- or if I'll need to create a new table and slot these things in separately. Unfortunately, the create-a-new-table operation would be even more hassle, given I've got to deal with WP's functions to get in and out of it, and they're not always quite as intuitive as I'd like.
So. Anyone?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 13 Apr 2009 03:55 pm (UTC)That's the kicker, I think: I can't come up with a reasonable simple way to force the string's elements to follow a pattern, not with human operators at the other end.
The goal here is to make searchable pairings, but knowing we're talking about pairings that run the entire gamut, it's not going to be as easy as just A+B and C+D and E+F ... so the potential combinations are really massive, massive, massive. Pre-coding that into a select box would make for a huge scrolling list to pick from, but doing it as "pick one from each column" would be a nightmare on the backend instead, it seems.
Oh, well. Guess this means I'm going to have to go with preset pairing-options, if I want to keep any consistency in things. Fffftt. WP is great in some ways, but in other ways it's just not set up for what I'm trying to do. It will do it, though, but it's really pushing the edges of my skill level. (Which isn't a bad thing, but still, I do have other stuff I need to do this week!)