Search Results

Search found 59326 results on 2374 pages for 'full text search'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 21/2374 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • New PeopleSoft Applications Search

    - by Matthew Haavisto
    As you may have seen from the PeopleTools 8.52 Release Value Proposition , PeopleTools intends to introduce a new search capability in release 8.52. We believe this feature will not only improve the ability of users to find content, but will fundamentally change the way people navigate around the PeopleSoft ecosystem. PeopleSoft applications will be delivering this new search in coming releases and feature packs. PeopleSoft Application Search is actually a framework—a group of features that provides an improved means of searching for a variety of content across PeopleSoft applications. From a user experience perspective, the new search offers a powerful, keyword-based search presented in a familiar, intuitive user experience. Rather than browsing through long menu hierarchies to find a page, data item, or transaction, users can use PeopleSoft Application Search to directly navigate to desired locations. We envision this to be similar to how people navigate across the internet. This capability may reduce or even eliminate the need to navigate PeopleSoft applications using the existing application menu system (though menus will still be available to people that prefer that method). The new search will be available at any point in an application and can be configured to span multiple PeopleSoft applications. It enables users to initiate transactions or navigate to key information without using the PeopleSoft application menus. In addition, filters and facets will enable people to narrow their search results sets, making it easier to identify and navigate to desired application content. Action menus are embedded directly in the search results, allowing users to navigate straight to specific related transactions – pre-populated with the selected search results data. PeopleSoft Applications Search framework uses Oracle’s Secure Enterprise Search as its search engine. Most Customers will benefit from the new search when it is delivered with applications. However, customers can start deploying it after a Tools-only upgrade. In this case, however, customers would have to create their own indices and implement security.

    Read the article

  • Sunspot / Solr full text search - how to index Rails associations

    - by Sam
    Is it possible to index through an association with Sunspot? For example, if a Customer has_many Contacts, I want a 'searchable' block on my Customer model that indexes the Contact#first_name and Contact#last_name columns for use in searches on Customer. acts_as_solr has an :include option for this. I've simply been combining the associated column names into a text field on Customer like shown below, but this doesn't seem very flexible. searchable do text :organization_name, :default_boost => 2 text :billing_address1, :default_boost => 2 text :contact_names do contacts.map { |contact| contact.to_s } end Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Best and easiest algorithm to search for a vertex on a Graph?

    - by Nazgulled
    Hi, After implementing most of the common and needed functions for my Graph implementation, I realized that a couple of functions (remove vertex, search vertex and get vertex) don't have the "best" implementation. I'm using adjacency lists with linked lists for my Graph implementation and I was searching one vertex after the other until it finds the one I want. Like I said, I realized I was not using the "best" implementation. I can have 10000 vertices and need to search for the last one, but that vertex could have a link to the first one, which would speed up things considerably. But that's just an hypothetical case, it may or may not happen. So, what algorithm do you recommend for search lookup? Our teachers talked about Breadth-first and Depth-first mostly (and Dikjstra' algorithm, but that's a completely different subject). Between those two, which one do you recommend? It would be perfect if I could implement both but I don't have time for that, I need to pick up one and implement it has the first phase deadline is approaching... My guess, is to go with Depth-first, seems easier to implement and looking at the way they work, it seems a best bet. But that really depends on the input. But what do you guys suggest?

    Read the article

  • SQL Search- The Search and the Sequel

    It started out as an experiment to try to explore different ways of creating a software tool that people would want. It ended up as a tool that Red Gate is giving away to the SQL Server community in return for the contribution to the project of so many of Red Gate's friends within the community. But was it easy to do? Bob Cramblitt and Richard Collins went to find out by talking to Tanya Joseph, who managed the project that turned the concept into a product.

    Read the article

  • Organising levels / rooms in a MUD-style text based world

    - by Polynomial
    I'm thinking of writing a small text-based adventure game, but I'm not particularly sure how I should design the world from a technical standpoint. My first thought is to do it in XML, designed something like the following. Apologies for the huge pile of XML, but I felt it important to fully explain what I'm doing. <level> <start> <!-- start in kitchen with empty inventory --> <room>Kitchen</room> <inventory></inventory> </start> <rooms> <room> <name>Kitchen</name> <description>A small kitchen that looks like it hasn't been used in a while. It has a table in the middle, and there are some cupboards. There is a door to the north, which leads to the garden.</description> <!-- IDs of the objects the room contains --> <objects> <object>Cupboards</object> <object>Knife</object> <object>Batteries</object> </objects> </room> <room> <name>Garden</name> <description>The garden is wild and full of prickly bushes. To the north there is a path, which leads into the trees. To the south there is a house.</description> <objects> </objects> </room> <room> <name>Woods</name> <description>The woods are quite dark, with little light bleeding in from the garden. It is eerily quiet.</description> <objects> <object>Trees01</object> </objects> </room> </rooms> <doors> <!-- a door isn't necessarily a door. each door has a type, i.e. "There is a <type> leading to..." from and to are references the rooms that this door joins. direction specifies the direction (N,S,E,W,Up,Down) from <from> to <to> --> <door> <type>door</type> <direction>N</direction> <from>Kitchen</from> <to>Garden</to> </door> <door> <type>path</type> <direction>N</direction> <from>Garden</type> <to>Woods</type> </door> </doors> <variables> <!-- variables set by actions --> <variable name="cupboard_open">0</variable> </variables> <objects> <!-- definitions for objects --> <object> <name>Trees01</name> <displayName>Trees</displayName> <actions> <!-- any actions not defined will show the default failure message --> <action> <command>EXAMINE</command> <message>The trees are tall and thick. There aren't any low branches, so it'd be difficult to climb them.</message> </action> </actions> </object> <object> <name>Cupboards</name> <displayName>Cupboards</displayName> <actions> <action> <!-- requirements make the command only work when they are met --> <requirements> <!-- equivilent of "if(cupboard_open == 1)" --> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>EXAMINE</command> <!-- fail message is the message displayed when the requirements aren't met --> <failMessage>The cupboard is closed.</failMessage> <message>The cupboard contains some batteires.</message> </action> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="0">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>OPEN</command> <failMessage>The cupboard is already open.</failMessage> <message>You open the cupboard. It contains some batteries.</message> <!-- assigns is a list of operations performed on variables when the action succeeds --> <assigns> <assign operation="set" value="1">cupboard_open</assign> </assigns> </action> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>CLOSE</command> <failMessage>The cupboard is already closed.</failMessage> <message>You closed the cupboard./message> <assigns> <assign operation="set" value="0">cupboard_open</assign> </assigns> </action> </actions> </object> <object> <name>Batteries</name> <displayName>Batteries</displayName> <!-- by setting inventory to non-zero, we can put it in our bag --> <inventory>1</inventory> <actions> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>GET</command> <!-- failMessage isn't required here, it'll just show the usual "You can't see any <blank>." message --> <message>You picked up the batteries.</message> </action> </actions> </object> </objects> </level> Obviously there'd need to be more to it than this. Interaction with people and enemies as well as death and completion are necessary additions. Since the XML is quite difficult to work with, I'd probably create some sort of world editor. I'd like to know if this method has any downfalls, and if there's a "better" or more standard way of doing it.

    Read the article

  • Search behavior of Windows 7 start menu

    - by Kevin Ivarsen
    I'm coming to Windows 7 from XP, and there are aspects of the start menu search that I like. However, there are some behaviors that seem either inconsistent or surprising to me. For example: If I type "Pa" into the search bar, Paint is the first result (under the "Programs" heading), and it is selected for me. I can just hit Enter to start the program If I have a standalone exe "testing" on my desktop, and I type "test", the program comes up as the first item (under the "Files" heading), but it is not selected for me. I have to hit down-down-down-enter to open it from the keyboard. The same appears to be true for shortcuts and folders. What classifies something as a "Program" verses a "File"? Is there any way to configure the start menu so that the first search result is always selected? As a heavy keyboard user, it seems insane for the behavior to be inconsistent, and to require so many keypresses to select the top result. Also, are there resources that document the details, limitations, and tricks of the start menu search? (For example, a "Proc Exp" search will match "Process Explorer", but not "ProcessExplorer") EDIT: I've found that instead of hitting down-down-down to select the first item (when no Programs are in the list), you can just hit tab. This helps a bit, but the inconsistent behavior still makes this search feature more awkward and frustrating than necessary.

    Read the article

  • Can I use a Google Appliance/Mini to crawl and index sites I don't own?

    - by SkippyFire
    Maybe this is a stupid question, but... I am working with this company and they said they needed to get "permission" to crawl other people's sites. They have a Google Search Appliance And some Google Minis and want to point them at other sites to aggregate content. The end result will be something like a targeted search engine. (All the indexed sites relate to a specific topic) The only thing they will be doing is: Indexing Content from the other sites/domains Providing search functionality on their own site that searches the indexed content (like Google, displaying summaries and not the full content) The search results will provide links back to the original content Their intent is not malicious in nature, and is to provide a single site/resource for people to reference on their given topic. Is there anything illegal or fishy about this process?

    Read the article

  • Full Text Search Strategy For My Website

    - by Hosea146
    I have a website that allows users to search for items in various categories. Each category is a separate area (page) of my website. For example, some categories might be cars, bikes, books etc. At the moment a user has to search for an item by going to the page (for example, cars) and searching for the car they want. I would like to allow the user to search for anything on my site, from my main home page. At the moment, each page (category) has its own set of tables, and I don't really want to turn Full Text Search on for each table (20+ of them) and search each table individually when a search is done. This is going to be slow and tedious. What I'm thinking of doing is creating a single table that will hold all searchable information for each category of item (when an item is saved in its respective table, I would copy all searchable information over to my 'Search' table). I would then turn Full Text Search on for that table, and search that table. Does this sound reasonable? Is there a better way? I've never used Full Text Search before, so this is new to me.

    Read the article

  • Link my tag on other website search

    - by kresna kurdang
    This is my search code <div id="search"> <form method="get" action="http://www.other-website.com/search"> <input type="hidden" name="f" value=""> <input type="text" placeholder="Temukan informasi, komunitas & produk yang kamu cari disini" accesskey="s" name="q"> <input type="submit" value="Search"> </form> </div> This is the tag code (display only text "do not link") <?php $posttags = get_the_tags(); if ($posttags) { foreach($posttags as $tag) { echo $tag->name . ' '; } } ?> The code can apply well on the website, but I have to enter text to the search. I just want to place my tag on that search text so my question is How to make fixed word(my tag) automatically placed on search or where I must place the tag code, the search result is mytag linked on @www.other-website.com/search so user do not have to type? I want to search my tag on other website search

    Read the article

  • Google Search Engine Optimization - The 3 Step Process to Search Engine Domination

    Would you like more targeted traffic to your website? Would you like to know how to get a stream of profitable customers visiting your site for keywords people are actually searching for? Are you overwhelmed by the complexity of SEO? If you answered yes to any of these questions then the easy 3 step Strategy to Google domination is exactly what you are looking for. In this article I reveal the 3 simple tactics for consistent top ten rankings.

    Read the article

  • Full-Text Search in SQL Server Express Won't Recognize Latest IFilters

    - by Brandon King
    I'm having difficulty getting full-text search working in SQL Server 2008 Express with Advanced Services. I have a table loaded with .DOCX files as varbinary(MAX) data that I want to use for a full-text catalog, but it doesn't seem to recognize the .DOCX format. Here are the steps that I've taken... Installed the latest Filter Pack 2.0 Exec sp_fulltext_service 'load_os_resources', 1 Exec sys.sp_help_fulltext_system_components 'all' (NOTE: .DOCX is not shown as a filter) Building the full-text catalog fails to identify any key words I initially thought there might be a conflict between x86 SQL Express and x64 Filter Pack on my Windows 7 machine, but I just tried it with everything x86 in a Windows XP virtual machine and got the same result.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to make CSS-added text searchable by a browser?

    - by Andrew Stacey
    I run a website that uses CSS pseudo classes to insert text here and there. One of them inserts the value of a CSS counter (whereupon it would require considerable re-engineering of the system to do this without CSS text injection). The specific CSS rule is: .num_defn .theorem_label:after { content: " " counter(definition, decimal); counter-increment: definition; } and this converts "Definition" to "Definition 1" (say). However, the injected text is not searchable by the browser. It doesn't see the 1: if I search for "Definition 1" then it doesn't find it, and if I search for "Definition. Whatever the definition text was" then the browser happily highlights the line except for the inserted 1. So if you imagine the bold text as the highlighting, it would look like: Definition 1 . Whatever the definition text was This is not ideal! People like to refer to definitions by their number and to say "Look at Definition 1 on the page XYZ" (and in contexts where hyperlinks are not available - strange, I know, but it does happen). Thus: Is there any way that I, on the server end, can designate the injected text as "searchable"? If not, is there a simple way at the browser end that this can be enabled?

    Read the article

  • How can Hosting Providers allow .NET Full Trust?

    - by Alex
    I wondered how certain .NET hosting providers can safely grant full trust to their customers? Doesn't this open up everybody who is hosting with that company to potential safety issues? Or is there a way to safely restrict each customer, despite giving full trust, to "their" space without giving them the abiliy to bring down the system or spy on other customers?

    Read the article

  • full text search on multiple fields in diferrent tables

    - by crisgomez
    Hi, I want to create a a full text search usng ms sql 2005. here is the structure of my table User-contains fields of Id, fname,lname,email,alternativeemail Attachment-contains fields of id, name,category,filenameorurl Certification-contains of fileds of id, title,school,sdate,edate EducationalBackground-contain of fields of, id,qualification,sdate,edate,school,fieldofstudy EmploymentDetails-contain of fields position, positionlevelid,specializationid,description now the relationship of user to the other table is one to many relationship. now how can I create an effective query to have quick full text search and return the values of the different tables?any help please

    Read the article

  • Questions on SQL Server 2008 Full-Text Search

    - by Eddie
    I have some questions about SQL 2K8 integrated full-text search. Say I have the following tables: Car with columns: id (int - pk), makeid (fk), description (nvarchar), year (int), features (int - bitwise value - 32 features only) CarMake with columns: id (int - pk), mfgname (nvarchar) CarFeatures with columns: id (int - 1, 2, 4, 8, etc.), featurename (nvarchar) If someone searches "red honda civic 2002 4 doors", how would I parse the input string so that I could also search in the "CarMake" and "CarFeatures" tables?

    Read the article

  • Using Full-Text-Search in order to find partial words (SQL SERVER 2008)

    - by dig
    Hello, I'm trying to build a facebook like search for my software. I'd like to query the table customers. I've set up a FULLTEXT Index and tried the next query SELECT * FROM Customer where CONTAINS(*,'*ann*') The query does return all the customers named Ann, but it doesn't return all the customers name Anne. Is there a way to create prefix search on SQL SERVER 2008 using FTS? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Full text search on multiple fields in different tables

    - by crisgomez
    Hi, I want to create a a full text search usng ms sql 2005. here is the structure of my table User-contains fields of Id, fname,lname,email,alternativeemail Attachment-contains fields of id, name,category,filenameorurl Certification-contains of fileds of id, title,school,sdate,edate EducationalBackground-contain of fields of, id,qualification,sdate,edate,school,fieldofstudy EmploymentDetails-contain of fields position, positionlevelid,specializationid,description now the relationship of user to the other table is one to many relationship. now how can I create an effective query to have quick full text search and return the values of the different tables?any help please

    Read the article

  • How to Enable Full-Text Index on Sql Server 2008 Table

    - by michaeldelorenzo
    Not sure what's happening with this, but here's my question. I have a Sql Server 2008 database that I need to be able to do full-text indexing/searching but when I try to setup my indices on the table, I get the following: I've tried running this stored procedure on my database and it's successful: EXEC sp_fulltext_database @action = 'enable' But I still get the above window and my full-text searches don't return any results when they should. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Postgresql full text search part of words

    - by Grezly
    Is postresql capable of doing a full text search, based on 'half' a word? For example i'm trying to seach foor tree, but i tell postgres to search for 'tr'. I can't find such a solution that is capable of doing this. Currently i'm using this select * from test, to_tsquery('tree') as q where vectors @@ q ; But i like to do something like this: select * from test, to_tsquery('tr%') as q where vectors @@ q ;

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >