Genetic string searches Re: VChar vs VText

[Ed Kleban]

On 11/30/05 9:45 AM, "Ruslan Zasukhin" <sunshine at public.kherson.ua> wrote:

> On 11/30/05 4:57 PM, "Ed Kleban" <Ed at Kleban.com> wrote:
>   
> All available methods and operators are descibed in the ValentinaSQL.pdf
> Check it 
> 
>     sin, cos, ..
>     concat, ... Trim ...

Yep, sure enough.  I was just not looking at this section before in the
right context.

But note that NOT, AND, XOR etc are listed there as "Logical Operators of
SQL [that] can return TRUE, FALSE or NULL (unknown) values."

There do not appear to be any bitwise logic functions available at all.

Thus my request that you add the functions noted in my email for use as
additional Find functions to make this possible.
 
> 
>> As far as boolean fields go, this is not really a solution. I'm not looking
>> for a way to create 16 separate single-bit boolean fields that I write
>> complex separate logic for in RB methods that operate on returned values or
>> with calculated field methods with long involved code.  I'm looking for a
>> fast bitwise operation that can perform 32 parallel bit comparisons with a
>> single "&" operator and move on to check the next record.
>> 
>> That make sense?  Or am I really missing something here?
> 
> You should not create 16 calculated fields.
> 
> You can change formula on the fly.
> If this field is not indexed, than change is ZERO time.
> 

Uh.. ok sure.  But I get the feeling that either you're missing my point, or
I'm missing yours.

Is there currently a way to do a search that uses a multi-bit field such as
a short or a long as a Mask with logical operations?  From what I've seen
the answer is "no", and the fact that you can have calculated boolean fields
doesn't really offer an alternative that's either viable or valuable from my
perspective.