I’m currently stuck on a problem… Probably one of you is smarter than me!
I have two different searches in my app. One is based on a database of user data, the other on a database of non-user data. Both searches can be searched with different filters. (by name, dropdown, multidropdown, etc.)
Based on the filters, the results are displayed to me in a repeating group.
So far so good. With the user-based data, I can apply several filters on top of each other with the multidropdown. Here, I am shown significantly more options in the “Search for” window:
If I try to do the same with a search based on a simple table that is not user-based, I get far fewer options in the search:
I need “is in” to get the result I want. But this possibility is denied to me.
Do you have any idea why this is the case? Am I just stupid and have overlooked something?
I appreciate your help!
11_Focused Region is obviously a ‘Text’ field… so you get ‘Text’ search operators.
06_Country is a list field, so you get the list search operators.
You can’t use ‘is in’ to compare two lists… it’s used to compare a single item to a list (i.e. is this item in this list)
What exactly are you trying to do with this search constraint?
Thank you for your answer!
I think I also did something wrong with the user filters…
The goal is to be able to search for users or items that match at least one of the items in the list.
For example, if I have someone who is interested in apples and I filter by apples, I would like to see all users who are interested in apples. These should then be displayed in the filtered group. So far so good, that has worked so far.
Now I am expanding the search by adding another entry to the filter. Bananas. I now want to display users who like both bananas and apples.
The way it works now, only those users are displayed who have an entry Apples Bananas in their item. As soon as they are separated from each other in the list, it is no longer displayed in the repeating group.
However, the aim is to also display users who like either apples or bananas. This way, not all items have to be in the list to appear in the search. Only one of the items has to be in our list.
Is there a way to do it?
To compare two lists in that way (i.e. does list A contain any items from List B) you’ll need to use an
:intersects with comparison, and then check the count.
List A: intersect with List B: count > 0
You can’t do that directly in the search, so you’ll you’ll have to apply an advanced filter after the search.
That means that the
intersect with comparison will be happening client-side, so just bear that in mind, and try to use as many server-side constraints as possible to reduce the amount of data being loaded onto the page for filtering.
I have to ask if I have understood this correctly.
My actual case is not about apples and bananas but about investors and their preferred investment stage. Here is a small excerpt of my data:
"List A: intersect with List B: count > 0 "
I understand it like this:
I compare the two tables and see how they intersect.
In my example, I want to search for “Pre-Seed” and “Seed” as the preferred investment stage. I use the same column again and again in the database, only for other users. Does this mean that I compare List A with List B-n? Or have we talked past each other?
As soon as I enter “Pre-Seed” and “Seed” in the filter, it searches for a “Pre-Seed Seed” entry in the table and finds nothing. Actually, I want all investors / users to be displayed for whom these items are present in the list.
Is the solution for this problem your previous message or is there another / simpler solution?
This topic was automatically closed after 70 days. New replies are no longer allowed.