[Mapserver-users] qstring - multiple values

[Fawcett, David]

I started a page on the Wiki for MapServer Expression documentation and examples.  

http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MapServerExpressions

I added the below example, please add your own and feel free to correct anything that I have written.

David.

David Fawcett
MN Office of Environmental Assistance

> ----------
> From: 	Fawcett, David
> Sent: 	Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: 	matt at kbc.net.au; mapserver-users at lists.gis.umn.edu; 'Steve Lime'
> Subject: 	RE: [Mapserver-users] qstring - multiple values
> 
> I figured out the syntax for the expression.  Here is an example that works for me:
> 
> The relevant parts of the URL are ...mode=itemnquery&qlayer=basemap&qstring=('[FIPS]'+IN+'27001,27003,27005')
> 
> 
> This is an example where I wanted to select records with a value of 27001, 27003, or 27005 in the FIPS field.  (string type field)
> 
> You can see that I also was able to omit qitem=FIPS from the URL because it is contained in the expression in the qstring.  (It works with it there too, but I assume that it is ignored)
> 
> Thanks for the help Steve!
> 
> David.
> 
> David Fawcett
> MN Office of Environmental Assistance
> 
> 	----------
> 	From: 	Steve Lime[SMTP:steve.lime at dnr.state.mn.us]
> 	Sent: 	Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:38 AM
> 	To: 	matt at kbc.net.au; mapserver-users at lists.gis.umn.edu
> 	Subject: 	Re: [Mapserver-users] qstring - multiple values
> 
> 	Remember that qstring is a valid MapServer expression so it's more
> 	powerful than before, although with that power comes a bit of complexity
> 	and even cumbersomeness. You're not just limited to string matches. So,
> 	to do multiple matches you would craft a logical expression like ([item]
> 	in ('27001','27003',...)). I'm not sure if the in syntax is correct but
> 	you get the idea. If there is enough interest we could look into
> 	supporting expressions like:
> 
> 	  EXPRESSION [27001,27003,...]
> 
> 	and having MapServer recognize that as a list to be matched against a
> 	single ITEM. Sort of a shortcut logical expression. It would be
> 	implemented as a new expression type within the software. Thoughts?
> 
> 	Steve
> 
>