× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



I completely understand.

Actually, I should be careful about the word "word" here. It will find the
"word" rick, but it will also find bricks and brick and ricky (for example).
In regular-expression speak, to find the *word* rick, you could use:

'\brick\b'

I don't know a way to do the same in SQL, especially when word boundaries
can be any of a number of characters: <space> <comma> <period> <apost>
<quote> <semicolon> et cetera.

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
CONGRESS.SYS corrupted. Reboot Washington DC <Y/N>?
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:06 AM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Use of regular expression

Dennis,

Thanks for clarifying the regular expression. As usual, I have
overcomplicated it.



To search for the word rick anywhere with a string, your exact regular
expression would be (are you ready for this complexity?) 'rick'. That
will find the string 'rick' anywhere within the search field.

This is exactly the same as your r{1}i{1}... syntax, and _so_ much more
legible. While the SQL suggestion is an option, it is likely to add to
your run time. But (like all performance topics) it depends on what
else is happening in your code.


I'm wondering if using regular expressions is a good way to handle a
word search. What I need is an exact match of a series of characters,
say 'rick', in a character field. I have only used regular
expressions a couple of times and the syntax still gets me confused.
I think I see a way to do this with with something like
r{1}i{1}c{1}k{1}.

I know I can do this with the %SCAN op code. The reason I'm thinking
about using regular expressions is the search will be over a table of
close to 1 billion records and I'm looking for efficiencies any place
I can find them. If an expression can be created I want to do some
comparisons between using a regular expression and %SCAN to see which
is really the best performer.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.