Hi Brendan
Any chance of boolean searches so I can combine two fields that otherwise cant be selected together as the first rule knocks out the other field I want to show?
Cheers
tony
PS Happy New Year and the above is probably as clear as mud!
Hi Tony,
Ya, I’m not sure what you mean by the first knocks out the other.
You can add multiple search rules which target the same field but use different comparisons. It’s useful for things like finding records between 2 dates.
Happy New Year to you too!
Brendan
Hi Brendan
I knew I wasn’t making any sense. I know I can use rules applied to one field, but that reduces the number of records selected as the rules all act on the same field.
What I am trying to do is select records using search on one field and then ADD records to the already selected records using another field search.
eg
Select records using the field “SENT”, some of which are empty – SENT=2013 – 23 records selected. That’s fine, trouble is in each record there is a field “RECEIVED”, some of which are empty.
This will only select records where I SENT something but will not also show records where I RECEIVED something in 2013 even if I didn’t SEND.
That’s not much clearer, but hey! Just got it – TEXT search for 2013 produces the right result as it looks at all fields and returns any record containing 2013, SENT or RECEIVED which shows where there are gaps!
Sorry to bother you.
Cheers
Tony
Hi Tony,
One other type of search you can do is in the value that you’re looking for you can put the keyword OR in between your search term.
So you could build a search like:
Movie Title contains Terminator OR Trek
That would return all movies that have Terminator in the name OR Trek in the name. So an expansion of the number of rows rather than a reduction.
The keyword OR must be in upper case.
Brendan
.
