Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569F0431FD0 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:51:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZ2K+g46rpkb for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com (mail-qy0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2766F431FB5 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so2250167qyk.5 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hm3jcPN8qUxILKUKWxLJT8tIQvOfRiufZBW7C0e19O0=; b=MCbA5S3Fqz01vJ3PmK77h6HWSuAtItjdoYqVZcVf2kbnt5LAFvV3qKQ3DBTQX4J5M8 6sIo9ziBNs3/8VCrK4tMYxkLBRnVCWVbnDSoV1WMoKm4vdZWxUxtmCCt+dwm/S4mBOVv CU984ywVYH7hQekYR/1+uz+4g/vIKXK/Pu8bU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=GfPf3RLw8Yme+M1S/zTWV01ofphh6JVzhqW7hj9y+coU3v1yJdPxjCSlj+J77omlpW vhlpabAbvsxZJvfffmHZpXBiMriwz+8N+AfP09oNi/rShkneTP0AJXBivmdAFmWmphae N18k/9zONQ6HAvjlqA6ku5C3MnSm0H8NCNz74= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.102.209 with SMTP id h17mr2973113qco.102.1300693893310; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: amdragon@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.30.68 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:51:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87k4g6vxrw.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> References: <87d3nhe3g9.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> <87lj0m8ki5.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <20110311024730.GA31011@mit.edu> <8762rq8byr.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87k4g6vxrw.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 03:51:33 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wCdKaB8v8EpqVqxn1rQltr9HwMM Message-ID: Subject: Re: Xapian locking errors with custom query parser From: Austin Clements To: Michal Sojka Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:51:35 -0000 On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Michal Sojka wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Carl Worth wrote: >> I've finally had a chance to start looking at this. > > [...] > >> 1. For "new" search features (ADJ,NEAR,etc.) I do not have a strong >> =A0 =A0interest in compatibility with Xapian. >> >> =A0 =A0I was very careful when I wrote the documentation for the notmuch >> =A0 =A0search syntax to only document features that I had used and teste= d, >> =A0 =A0and that I was sure I wanted. (I was already thinking forward to >> =A0 =A0perhaps writing a custom query parser at some point.) >> >> =A0 =A0So you should really use our existing documentation as the >> =A0 =A0guide. Please implement and test what it says. >> >> =A0 =A0Beyond that, if you want to add additional features not mentioned= in >> =A0 =A0our documentation, then feel free to, and there's no good reason = not >> =A0 =A0to be Xapian compatible. But I also don't think there's a strong >> =A0 =A0reason that we have to be compatible. > > Additionally, I'd suggest to support value range queries for dates with > ".." syntax. Besides that some users may relay on this syntax, I use > date searches a lot and with custom query parser I have to type > "after:yesterday", which is unnecessarily long. I wish that > "yesterday..", which is much easier to type, would do the same. > Similarly, "mon..wed" would be easier to type than "after:mon > before:wed". What do you think? Personally, I just don't understand the .. range syntax, which is why I left it out (also, I was following the example in the TODO file). It's completely inconsistent with the rest of the query syntax and makes no indication of what it's a range over (what if you had other ordinal values to search over? what if you could search by the received date or the sent date?). What about something like "date:mon..wed"? That's consistent with the query syntax (the range part becomes part of the date syntax, not part of the top-level query syntax), it indicates the domain of the search term in a clean and extensible way, and it's succinct.