I have following code for Lucene .Net search:
If I use query like:
AccountId:1 AND CompanyId:1 AND CreatedOn:[636288660000000000 TO 636315443990000000] AND AuditProperties.FriendlyName.NewValue:CustomerId|235
It works fine with exact match with CustomerId = 235.
However, if I try to search for a wildcard match like for example:
AccountId:1 AND CompanyId:1 AND CreatedOn:[636288660000000000 TO 636315443990000000] AND AuditProperties.FriendlyName.NewValue:CustomerId|*235*
it doesn't fetch me any results. I think it is still going for an exact match with value "*235*" Am I missing anything here?
Thanks!
As per the QueryParser syntax documentation, the character | is not supported. However, it is not very clear whether you intended it to be a logical OR or a literal character.
Logical OR
The correct syntax for logical OR is either CustomerId OR *235*, CustomerId *235* or CustomerId||*235*.
Also, if this is meant to be a logical OR, you have to allow for a leading wildcard character as pointed out in Howto perform a 'contains' search rather than 'starts with' using Lucene.Net.
parser.AllowLeadingWildcard = true;
Literal |
To search for a literal pipe character, you should escape the character so the parser doesn't confuse it with a logical OR.
CustomerId\|*235*
Related
For my database, I have a list of company numbers where some of them start with two letters. I have created a regex which should eliminate these from a query and according to my tests, it should. But when executed, the result still contains the numbers with letters.
Here is my regex, which I've tested on https://www.regexpal.com
([^A-Z+|a-z+].*)
I've tested it against numerous variations such as SC08093, ZC000191 and NI232312 which shouldn't match and don't in the tests, which is fine.
My sql query looks like;
SELECT companyNumber FROM company_data
WHERE companyNumber ~ '([^A-Z+|a-z+].*)' order by companyNumber desc
To summerise, strings like SC08093 should not match as they start with letters.
I've read through the documentation for postgres but I couldn't seem to find anything regarding this. I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Thanks.
The ~ '([^A-Z+|a-z+].*)' does not work because this is a [^A-Z+|a-z+].* regex matching operation that returns true even upon a partial match (regex matching operation does not require full string match, and thus the pattern can match anywhere in the string). [^A-Z+|a-z+].* matches a letter from A to Z, +,|or a letter fromatoz`, and then any amount of any zero or more chars, anywhere inside a string.
You may use
WHERE companyNumber NOT SIMILAR TO '[A-Za-z]{2}%'
See the online demo
Here, NOT SIMILAR TO returns the inverse result of the SIMILAR TO operation. This SIMILAR TO operator accepts patterns that are almost regex patterns, but are also like regular wildcard patterns. NOT SIMILAR TO '[A-Za-z]{2}%' means all records that start with two ASCII letters ([A-Za-z]{2}) and having anything after (%) are NOT returned and all others will be returned. Note that SIMILAR TO requires a full string match, same as LIKE.
Your pattern: [^A-Z+|a-z+].* means "a string where at least some characters are not A-Z" - to extend that to the whole string you would need to use an anchored regex as shown by S-Man (the group defined with (..) isn't really necessary btw)
I would probably use a regex that specifies want the valid pattern is and then use !~ instead.
where company !~ '^[0-9].*$'
^[0-9].*$ means "only consists of numbers" and the !~ means "does not match"
or
where not (company ~ '^[0-9].*$')
Not start with a letter could be done with
WHERE company ~ '^[^A-Za-z].*'
demo: db<>fiddle
The first ^ marks the beginning. The [^A-Za-z] says "no letter" (including small and capital letters).
Edit: Changed [A-z] into the more precise [A-Za-z] (Why is this regex allowing a caret?)
Hi may i know what does the below query means?
REGEXP_REPLACE(number,'[^'' ''-/0-9:-#A-Z''[''-`a-z{-~]', 'xy') ext_number
part 1
In terms of explaining what the function function call is doing:
It is a function call to analyse an input string 'number' with a regex (2nd argument) and replace any parts of the string which match a specific string. As for the name after the parenthesis I am not sure, but the documentation for the function is here
part 2
Sorry to be writing a question within an answer here but I cannot respond in comments yet (not enough rep)
Does this regex work? Unless sql uses different syntax this would appear to be a non-functional regex. There are some red flags, e.g:
The entire regex is wrapped in square parenthesis, indicating a set of characters but seems to predominantly hold an expression
There is a range indicator between a single quote and a character (invalid range: if a dash was required in the match it should be escaped with a '\' (backslash))
One set of square brackets is never closed
After some minor tweaks this regex is valid syntax:
^'' ''\-\/0-9:-#A-Z''[''-a-z{-~]`, but does not match anything I can think of, it is important to know what string is being examined/what the context is for the program in order to identify what the regex might be attempting to do
It seems like it is meant to replaces all ASCII control characters in the column or variable number with xy.
[] encloses a class of characters. Any character in that class matches. [^] negates that, hence all characters match, that are not in the class.
- is a range operator, e.g. a-z means all characters from a to z, like abc...xyz.
It seams like characters enclosed in ' should be escaped (The second ' is to escape the ' in the string itself.) At least this would make some sense. (But for none of the DBMS I found having a regexp_replace() function (Postgres, Oracle, DB2, MariaDB, MySQL), I found something in the docs, that would indicate this escape mechanism. They all use \, but maybe I missed something? Unfortunately you didn't tag which DBMS you're actually using!)
Now if you take an ASCII table you'll see, that the ranges in the expression make up all printable characters (counting space as printable) in groups from space to /, 0 to 9, : to #, etc.. Actually it might have been shorter to express it as '' ''-~, space to ~.
Given the negation, all these don't match. The ones left are from NUL to US and DEL. These match and get replaced by xy one by one.
I am using Lucene version 5.0.0.
In my search string, there is a minus character like “test-”.
I read that the minus sign is a special character in Lucene. So I have to escape that sign, as in the queryparser documentation:
Escaping Special Characters:
Lucene supports escaping special characters that are part of the query syntax. The current list special characters are:
- + - && || ! ( ) { } [ ] ^ " ~ * ? : \ /`
To escape these character use the \ before the character. For example to search for (1+1):2 use the query:
\(1\+1\)\:2
To do that I use the QueryParser.escape method:
query = parser.parse(QueryParser.escape(searchString));
I use the classic Analyzer because I noticed that the standard Analyzer has some problems with escaping special characters.
The problem is that the Parser deletes the special characters and so the Query has the term
content:test
How can I set up the parser and searcher to search for the real value “test-“?
I also created my own query with the content test- but that also didn’t work. I recieved 0 results but my index has entries like:
Test-VRF
Test-IPLS
I am really confused about this problem.
While escaping special characters for the queryparser deals with part of the problem, it doesn't help with analysis.
Neither classic nor standard analyzer will keep punctuation in the indexed form of the field. For each of these examples, the indexed form will be in two terms:
test and vrf
test and ipls
This is why a manually constructed query for "test-" finds nothing. That term does not exist in the index.
The goal of these analyzers is to attempt to index words. As such, punctuation is mostly eliminated, and is not searchable. A phrase query for "test vrf" or "test-vrf" or "test_vrf" are all effectively identical. If that is not what you need, you'll need to look to other analyzers.
The goal to fix this issue is to store the value content in an NOT_ANALYZED way.
Field fieldType = new Field(key.toLowerCase(),value, Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED);
Someone who has the same problem has to take care how to store the contents in the index.
To request the result create a query in this way
searchString = QueryParser.escape(searchString);
and use for example a WhitespaceAnalyzer.
I was wondering if anyone can help me with a regular expression - not my strongest point - to parse the WHERE part of a SQL statement. I need to extract the column names, either in "column" or "table.column" format. I'm using MySQL and PHP.
For example, parsing:
(table.column_a = '1') OR (table.column_a = '0'))
AND (date_column < '2014-07-03')
AND column_c LIKE '%my search string%'
should yield
table.column_a
table.column_b
date_column
column_c
Edit: clarification - the strings will be parsed in PHP with preg_* functions!
Thank you!
Assuming you are not doing this in SQL, you can use a regex like this:
[A-Za-z._]+(?=[ ]*(?:[<>=]|LIKE))
See regex demo.
This would work in Notepad++ and many languages.
Explanation
[A-Za-z._]+ matches the characters in your word (if you want to add digits, add 0-9
The lookahead (?=[ ]*(?:[<>=]|LIKE)) asserts that what follows is optional spaces (the brackets are optional, they make the space stand out), then one of the characters in this class [<>=] (an operator OR | LIKE
You can add operators inside [<>=], or tag them at the end with another alternation, e.g. |REGEXP
Reference
Lookahead and Lookbehind Zero-Length Assertions
Mastering Lookahead and Lookbehind
I am trying to write a search that queries our directory server running openldap.
The users are going to be searching using the first or last name of the person they're interested in.
I found a problem with accented characters (like áéíóú), because first and last names are written in Spanish, so while the proper way is Pérez it can be written for the sake of the search as Perez, without the accent.
If I use '(cn=*Perez*)' I get only the non-accented results.
If I use '(cn=*Pérez*)' I get only accented results.
If I use '(cn=~Perez)' I get weird results (or at least nothing I can use, because while the results contain both Perez and Pérez ocurrences, I also get some results that apparently have nothing to do with the query...
In Spanish this happens quite a lot... be it lazyness, be it whatever you want to call it, the fact is that for this kind of thing people tend NOT to write the accents because it's assumend all these searches work with both options (I guess since Google allowes it, everybody assumes it's supposed to work that way).
Other than updating the database and removing all accents and trimming them on the query... can you think of another solution?
You have your ~ and = swapped above. It should be (cn~=Perez). I still don't know how well that will work. Soundex has always been strange. Since many attributes are multi-valued including cn you could store a second value on the attribute that has the extended characters converted to their base versions. You would at least have the original value to still go off of when you needed it. You could also get real fancy and prefix the converted value with something and use the valuesReturnFilter to filter it out from your results.
#Sample object
dn:cn=Pérez,ou=x,dc=y
cn:Pérez
cn:{stripped}Perez
sn:Pérez
#etc.
Then modify your query to use an or expression.
(|(cn=Pérez)(cn={stripped}Perez))
And you would include a valuesReturnFilter that looked like
(!(cn={stripped}*))
See RFC3876 http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/rfc/rfc3876.txt for details. The method for adding a request control varies by what platform/library you are using to access the directory.
Search filters ("queries") are specified by RFC2254.
Encoding:
RFC2254
actually requires filters (indirectly defined) to be an
OCTET STRING, i.e. ASCII 8-byte String:
AttributeValue is OCTET STRING,
MatchingRuleId
and AttributeDescription
are LDAPString, LDAPString is an OCTET STRING.
The standard on escaping: Use "<ASCII HEX NUMBER>" to replace special characters
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4515#page-4, examples https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4515#page-5).
Quote:
The <valueencoding> rule ensures that the entire filter string is a
valid UTF-8 string and provides that the octets that represent the
ASCII characters "*" (ASCII 0x2a), "(" (ASCII 0x28), ")" (ASCII
0x29), "\" (ASCII 0x5c), and NUL (ASCII 0x00) are
represented as a backslash "\" (ASCII 0x5c) followed by the two hexadecimal digits
representing the value of the encoded octet.
Additionally, you should probably replace all characters that semantically modify the filter (RFC 4515's grammar gives a list), and do a Regex replace of non-ASCII characters with wildcards (*) to be sure. This will also help you with characters like "é".