On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:27:13 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Susannah > >If the name you are researching is very rare, then even searching the entire >database does not return a complete page, let alone multiple pages. And would not give a "Search too Complex" error. >So to those who want to change the search engine, please consider the whole >range of people who will want to use FreeBMD, including the one-name study >style or researcher, and those researchers whose family names are extinct in >20th century England and Wales. "Those who want to change the search engine" reads as if the changes that have been implemented have been implemented because of some strange desire to make life difficult. Let me state again that the changes were NECESSARY. Cross database searching makes HUGE demands on the server, and if hugely complex searches are allowed EVERYBODY else who is searching at the same time gets thrown out. It is not acceptable that a single search should prevent 40 others from working, so we have blocked the searches that were causing the problem. It is *still* possible to get the same information by searching a limited timescale (say in 10 year chunks). I realise that this is less convenient, but it can still be done. -- Dave Mayall

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:15 AM Subject: Re: The Complex Search Issue > On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:27:13 +0200, you wrote: > > >Hi Susannah > > > >If the name you are researching is very rare, then even searching the entire > >database does not return a complete page, let alone multiple pages. > > And would not give a "Search too Complex" error. > > >So to those who want to change the search engine, please consider the whole > >range of people who will want to use FreeBMD, including the one-name study > >style or researcher, and those researchers whose family names are extinct in > >20th century England and Wales. > > "Those who want to change the search engine" reads as if the changes > that have been implemented have been implemented because of some > strange desire to make life difficult. > > Let me state again that the changes were NECESSARY. Cross database > searching makes HUGE demands on the server, and if hugely complex > searches are allowed EVERYBODY else who is searching at the same time > gets thrown out. > > It is not acceptable that a single search should prevent 40 others > from working, so we have blocked the searches that were causing the > problem. It is *still* possible to get the same information by > searching a limited timescale (say in 10 year chunks). I realise that > this is less convenient, but it can still be done. Dave You have explained why it was necessary to do this. But it might be helpful to change the terminology employed since the issue is not strictly one of complexity but of the number of potential hits. A complex search implies, at least to me, that it is one that seeks to match multiple criteria. Such a search might be anticipated to require more cpu time. Whereas searching for a single but common surname is not complex. But the number of hits also takes up too much cpu time. Yet the current default explanation implies that it is searches lacking a surname that will cause problems. Peter Norman