From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C446DE02AF for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:01:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.357 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 271cs4nZNFCT for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e.thregr.org (e.thregr.org [80.68.88.20]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8B26DE0130 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2a02:27e8:20:9049:56ee:75ff:fe83:444c] (helo=localhost) by e.thregr.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1beO4B-0003yh-G6; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:01:39 +0200 From: Yuri D'Elia To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Query operators In-Reply-To: <87bn0bog1l.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <87y43fq368.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> <87bn0bog1l.fsf@zancas.localnet> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:01:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87fupnpqjw.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 29 Aug 2016 15:01:46 -0000 On Mon, Aug 29 2016, David Bremner wrote: > Yuri D'Elia writes: > >> term1 AND (tag:term2 OR tag:term3) >> >> am I right? Is this a feature of the xapian query syntax? (can it be >> tweaked to _unconditionally_ AND all terms?) > > This is most likely a feature of the "grouping" parameter in > QueryParser::add_boolean_prefix. It _might_ be the case that passing an > empty string (in lib/database.cc) will improve this behaviour from your > point of view. What's your POV on this? Is it expected/useful in some scenario? I'd expect all terms to follow the same rules for consistency.