0 results for every search

i recently got my logic board replaced. ever since, finder has found 0 results for every search. i specified to check on both the hard drive and computer. anybody know what's the problem?

You probably need to rebuild the Spotlight index. (I'm not sure why, though.) You'll find instructions and much more here:
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/stopspotlightindex.html

Similar Messages

How to get more than 300 results for a search

Hi all,
When we search for something in a peoplesoft, we get 300 default results right.
Is there a way we can change that to 500 or 600 or any.
Please help me.
Thank you,
Bye.

I heard that we have to do some settings in psappserv.cfg file to get more than 300 rows in a search. Is that true?
Please help me.
Thank you,
Bye.

Max results for facility search 500. Is there a setting

Is there a setting to increase the result set size of Facilities in a result set? We have users searching for Facilities and it gives a message saying the 500 record maximum has been hit with no option to open another page or see all the results.
i didn't see any config for this in the E17153_01 document.
Thanks,
David

ah, I understand now. I thought you were saying no records were returned and you ONLY got a message saying '500 search results has been exceeded.'
Returning a maximum of 500 records is as designed and not configurable for performance reasons. Typically, we recommend adding criteria to limit your result set. If there is a valid business use case for displaying > 500 records, then I suggest submitting an enhancement request.
thanks,
-M

Filter results for New Search Criteria of Advanced Search

Hi,
I'm new to oaf.
I have added extended VO item to seeded advanced search region as new search criteria by personalization.
When i try to search for new criteria the results are not filtering and my extended CO logic as follows:
IN PFR:
if(oapagecontext.getParameter(oaquerybean.getGoButtonName()) != null || oapagecontext.getParameter(oaquerybean.getPersonalizeGoButtonName()) != null)
OAAdvancedSearchBean oaadvancedsearchbean = (OAAdvancedSearchBean)oawebbean.findChildRecursive("assetAdvSearch");
boolean flag = true;
if(oaadvancedsearchbean != null)
int i = oaadvancedsearchbean.getDisplayedCriteriaCount();
String s4 = oapagecontext.getParameter("advancedSearchRadioGroup");
for(int j = 0; j < i; j++)
String s6 = (new StringBuilder()).append("Value_").append(Integer.toString(j)).toString();
String s7 = (new StringBuilder()).append("Condition_").append(Integer.toString(j)).toString();
String s8 = oaadvancedsearchbean.getOriginalUINodeName(s6);
if(s8.equals("XXAssocMsgInput"))
String xx=oapagecontext.getParameter(s6);
oapagecontext.writeDiagnostics(this, "criteria value: "+xx, 105);
if (xx !=null) {
StringBuffer stringbuffer = new StringBuffer(100);
// Setting whereClause at Runtime to restrict the query
OAApplicationModule rootam = oapagecontext.getApplicationModule(oawebbean);
OAApplicationModule childAM = (OAApplicationModule)rootam.findApplicationModule("XXAdvSearchAM");
OAViewObject vvo1 = (OAViewObject)childAM.findViewObject("XXAdvSearchVO1");
Serializable[] parameters = {xx};
childAM.invokeMethod("getAssociateWith", parameters);
In AMImpl:
public void getAssociateWith(String xx)
OAViewObject vo = (OAViewObject)getXXAdvSearchVO1();
Vector parameters = new Vector(2);
StringBuffer whereClause = new StringBuffer(100);
int clauseCount = 0;
int bindCount = 0;
vo.setWhereClauseParams(null); // Always reset
if ((xx!=null) && (!("".equals(xx.trim()))))
whereClause.append(" ASSOCIATE_WITH LIKE :");
whereClause.append(++bindCount);
parameters.addElement(xx);
clauseCount++;
vo.setWhereClause(whereClause.toString());
writeDiagnostics(this,"In AMIMPL whereclause:"+whereClause.toString(),119);
if (bindCount >0)
Object[] params=new Object[bindCount];
parameters.copyInto(params);
vo.setWhereClauseParams(params);
writeDiagnostics(this,"In AMIMPL XXAdvSearchVO:"+vo.getQuery(),120);
writeDiagnostics(this,"In AMIMPL VO Cnt:"+vo.getRowCount(),121);
vo.executeQuery();
writeDiagnostics(this,"After query = " + vo.getQuery(),123);
In diagnostics, parameter is not getting assigned with the value ..
Can you anyone suggest the inputs?
Thanks,
mallik
Edited by: 758972 on Jul 29, 2012 1:09 PM

Mallik,
Is it the same requirement which we were discussing in another thread, to add search criteria in advance serch bean through personalization.
If yes, let me try at my end and will let you know..
--Parag Narkhede

Wrong results for context search on empty element tags

I'm using Oracle DBMS 11.1 and 11.2 and created a context index on an XML column (section group: PATH_SECTION_GROUP).
When entering a query like
SELECT count(*) FROM my_table t WHERE contains (t.co_xml,'hasPath(/tag1/tag2)') > 0
I get wrong results if tag2 is an empty element tag (<tag2/>) that appears somewhere within the
XML instance, but NOT directly under tag1.
E.g., the following XML instance is found (but shouldn't!):
<a>
<tag1>bla<tag3>bla</tag3></tag1>
<tag4>bla<tag2/></tag4>
</a>
This seems to happen only for empty element tags. Is this a known bug and does anybody know a workaround?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Roman

I am unable to reproduce the problem. Can you provide a copy and paste of an actual run, including create table, insert data, create index, and select, as I have done below?
SCOTT@orcl_11g> select * from v$version
2 /
BANNER
Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
PL/SQL Release 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
CORE     11.1.0.6.0     Production
TNS for 32-bit Windows: Version 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
SCOTT@orcl_11g> create table my_table
2    (co_xml     xmltype)
3 /
Table created.
SCOTT@orcl_11g> insert into my_table values (
2 xmltype ('<?xml version="1.0"?>
3 <tag5>
4    <tag1>bla<tag3>bla</tag3></tag1>
5    <tag4>bla<tag2/></tag4>
6 </tag5>'))
7 /
1 row created.
SCOTT@orcl_11g> create index my_idx
2 on my_table (co_xml)
3 indextype is ctxsys.context
4 parameters ('section group ctxsys.path_section_group')
5 /
Index created.
SCOTT@orcl_11g> SELECT count(*)
2 FROM   my_table t
3 WHERE contains (t.co_xml, 'hasPath (//tag1/tag2)') > 0
4 /
COUNT(*)
         0
SCOTT@orcl_11g> SELECT count(*)
2 FROM   my_table t
3 WHERE contains (t.co_xml, 'hasPath (//tag1/tag3)') > 0
4 /
COUNT(*)
         1
SCOTT@orcl_11g>

Tuning code to return results for EVERY DAYS even if there is no data.

Hi,
SELECT a,b,c,DAY (some days aren't in the results because the is no data for this day)This code returns all days of the month
SELECT DAYS_OF_MONTH FROM DUAL....How can I use both queries together so that the result returns data for all days (if no data it will write 0)
Someone said a union would do the trick. I was unable to make it work.
Regards,
THKKK
Edited by: The Hong Kong King Kong on May 4, 2010 7:36 AM

Hi,
So this is what I've got and it does not compute. ( It's giving ORA-00904 DAYSOFMONTH NOT VALID IDENTIFIER --> DAYS_OF_MONTH = SERV1.DAY(+)
WITH all_days AS
SELECT
TO_CHAR(TO_DATE(LEVEL||'-'||TO_CHAR(ADD_MONTHS(SYSDATE,-1),'MON-YY'),'DD-MON-YY'),'DD') *DAYSOFMONTH*
FROM DUAL
CONNECT BY LEVEL <= TO_NUMBER(TO_CHAR(LAST_DAY(ADD_MONTHS(SYSDATE,-1)),'DD'))
SELECT *all_days.DAYSOFMONTH*, nvl(SERV1.DAY,'TOTAL MONTH:') DAY,
         nvl(SUM(SERV1.GOOD),0) GOOD1,
         nvl(SUM(SERV1.WRONG),0) WRONG1,
         nvl(SUM(SERV2.GOOD),0) GOOD2,
         nvl(SUM(SERV2.WRONG),0) WRONG2,
         nvl(SUM(SERV3.GOOD),0) GOOD3,
         nvl(SUM(SERV3.WRONG),0) WRONG3,
         (nvl(SUM(SERV1.GOOD),0)+nvl(SUM(SERV2.GOOD),0)+nvl(SUM(SERV3.GOOD),0)) TOTAL_GOOD,
         (nvl(SUM(SERV1.WRONG),0)+nvl(SUM(SERV2.WRONG),0)+nvl(SUM(SERV3.WRONG),0)) TOTAL_WRONG
    FROM (SELECT   TO_CHAR(FINISHED, 'dd') DAY,
                   SUM(CASE
                           WHEN STATUS_CODE IN (4, 12) THEN 1
                           ELSE 0
                        END) GOOD,
                   SUM(CASE
                           WHEN STATUS_CODE NOT IN (4, 12) THEN 1
                           ELSE 0
                        END) WRONG
              FROM my_table
             WHERE SERVER_NAME = 'somename1'
             GROUP BY TO_CHAR (FINISHED, 'dd')) Serv1,
          (SELECT   TO_CHAR (FINISHED, 'dd') DAY,
                   SUM(CASE
                           WHEN STATUS_CODE IN (4, 12) THEN 1
                           ELSE 0
                        END) GOOD,
                  SUM(CASE
                           WHEN STATUS_CODE NOT IN (4, 12) THEN 1
                           ELSE 0
                        END) WRONG
              FROM MY_TABLE
             WHERE SERVER_NAME = 'somename2'
                           GROUP BY TO_CHAR (FINISHED, 'dd')) Serv2,
          (SELECT   TO_CHAR (FINISHED, 'dd') DAY,
                   SUM(CASE
                           WHEN STATUS_CODE IN (4, 12) THEN 1
                           ELSE 0
                        END) GOOD,
                   SUM(CASE
                           WHEN STATUS_CODE NOT IN (4, 12) THEN 1
                           ELSE 0
                        END) WRONG
              FROM my_table
             WHERE NOM_SERVEUR_RAPP <> 'somename1'
               AND NOM_SERVEUR_RAPP <> 'somename2'
             GROUP BY TO_CHAR (FINISHED, 'dd')) SERV3
WHERE Serv1.JOUR = Serv2.DAY(+)
AND Serv2.JOUR = Serv3.DAY(+)
*AND JOURS_DU_MOIS = SERV1.DAY (+)*
GROUP BY ROLLUP (SERV1.DAY)
ORDER BY 1;Also, the LEFT OUTER JOIN cannot be used along with (+).
Please help!

Looking for AppMATes Cars 2 app and get "no results" for my search.

Bought the Disney/Pixar Cars toy for my grandson. It comes with two cars and tells you to "download the cars app." Which one?

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cars-2-appmates/id461788392?mt=8

Report for every 1 hour

I wanted to take out a report for every one hour, the count, i used trunc(x_date,'hh24') to take the report, but the problem is, for few hours there wont be any count, so i have to substitute with zero there, any ideas ?,

Hi,
If you want to make sure all hours appear in the result set, even if they don't appear in the table, then outer-join to a table (or, in the example below, a sub-query) where you know they do exist.
For example, if your table_x has columns entry_dt and amt, and you want results for every hour of the day, you can do somehting like this:
WITH     all_hours     AS
     SELECT     TO_CHAR ( SYSDATE + (LEVEL / 24)
               , 'HH24'
               )     AS hr
     FROM     dual
     CONNECT BY     LEVEL     <= 24
SELECT       a.hr
,       COUNT (entry_dt)     AS cnt
,       NVL ( AVG (amt)
           , 0
           )               AS avg_amt
FROM           all_hours a
LEFT OUTER JOIN      table_x    x      ON   a.hr = TO_CHAR (entry_dt, 'HH24')
GROUP BY a.hr
ORDER BY a.hr
;COUNT never returns NULL, so you don't have to use NVL with COUNT.
For other aggregate functions (such as AVG) you do need to use NVL to get 0 instead of NULL.
I hope this answers your question.
If not, post a little sample data (CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements, relevant columns only), and the results you want from that data.
Explain, using specific examples, how you get those results from that data.
Always say what version of Oracle you're using.

Highly frustrated with Outlook 2013 Search People box bugs - Multiple Name Results for Same Contact & Inconsistent Results

The Outlook 2013 "Search People" box does not function properly. It frequently displays incorrect results or a mess of duplicate results. I've reported previous issues about this and consolidating my posts into one (with screenshots this
time). Hopefully this message will be forwarded to or seen by the Outlook programmers. It really needs to be fixed.
Outlook 2010 and other prior versions worked perfectly. You search for name, you get ONE result with the info you're looking for. FAST AND EASY. But with Outlook 2013 Microsoft has created a heck of a mess resulting in huge frustration and productivity loss
with such simple but important tasks.
I have hundreds of contacts stored in my Outlook address book, and they all have COMPLETE contact info added.
One major issue that I'm experiencing in the new Outlook 2013 is that I now get average of 4 or more duplicate name results appearing for the same contact. And each result contains different and incomplete contact info, making it impossible for me to quickly
find the basic info I'm looking for. The cause of this issue is that Outlook 2013 now provides results from not only your local address book(s), but it also shows results based on your email history and social media accounts setup.
And there's no way to turn this off, or at least specify what folders and/or accounts the People Search box should use.
To make matters worse, the Microsoft developers conveniently forgot to add some form of an indicator (like a small icon besides each name result in the list) that clearly indicates what result is from what source. So you must manually click on each
result one at a time and repeat the search until you locate the correct one.
For one specific example, I have a contact stored in my local address book called
Infusionsoft. When I type "Infusionsoft" in the People Search box to quickly find a phone number, Outlook 2013 shows me 7 results with the same name. See the screenshot below:
As you can see in the screenshot above, every result just says "Infusionsoft", so I have to manually click on each name result one at a time and repeat the process until I find the correct one from my address book. This same thing happens with other
random contacts.
From what I can tell, Outlook is pulling results based on based on recent emails I've received from different people with "@infusionsoft.com" in their email address. So the first result shows "[email protected]" (just the email
address), the second result shows "[email protected]", the third result shows "[email protected]" and so forth. I don't want Outlook to show all of that. I just want what's in my address book!
And you would think that the last result would be the correct one from my address book, but no. Sometimes its the 5th result, and other times it's the 3rd or 7th result. So there's no freaking order of things here.
We simply need the ability to turn off searching of email history and other accounts when using the People Search box. Problem fixed.
(And please don't tell me that I need to "link" every incorrect result to one main contact. You shouldn't expect everyone to have to tediously link any and all results that appear to a record. ESPECIALLY when 5+ results for each contact appear regularly.)
ISSUE 2: Some names must be typed in a different way for the Search People to locate them
Another big issue I'm having with the Search People box is that some name searches don’t show the correct result, unless I search for their names in a different way.
For one specific example, I have a contact stored in my address book named "Dave Johnson". When I type "Dave Johnson" in the Search People box, one result appears, but it's just his email address, only. It's not the result that's stored in my Outlook address
book with his phone number, addresses, etc. Screen shot below:
If I type in Dave's name reverse order (Johnson Dave), no results are found at all.
Now if I just type in just"Johnson" all by itself, it finds Dave's correct result (the one stored in my Outlook Address Book). Along with everybody else that has "Johnson" in their name (see screenshot below)...
I double-checked how I have Dave's name programed in my address book, and it's in there as "Dave Johnson" for both the Full Name and File As fields.
Also, the name order shouldn't make any difference when using the People Search Box anyway. Sometimes I can find people by Last Name, First Name or First Name, Last Name. Only with random contacts does it get difficult finding their info and
I have to do strange things like this to find them from the People Search box.
ISSUE 3: Some Search People results only yield an email address only.
For other random contacts, some search results only yield an email address with no other contact details. But I can open the persons contact card from the address book manually, with the same email address shown! Screenshot below...
In the screenshot above, I have outlined the Search People box results in red, and the Address Book results in green. You can clearly see that "Robert White" is a contact stored in my local address book with full contact details, but the Search People result
only shows his email address! Again, it's not consitent. It's hit or miss with different people.
ISSUE 4: Some results just don't appear at all, but they are in the address book
Another issue I'm experiencing with the People Search Box is that some people simply cannot be found. But I can see their contact info just fine if I click on the "People" tab down at the bottom of the page and type in their name in the "Search Contacts"
field. Why can't the People Search box find certain people? I opened up their contact details and cannot find a single thing that would prevent them from showing up in results.
These are clearly serious bugs that need to be fixed. And I'm shocked as to how this got missed--or ignored during alpha and beta testing. I see the "idea" behind the developers having the Search People box search everything outside of the
address book, but in real world application this causes a heck of a lot of problems & confusion, and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
For technical details, I have Outlook 2013 running on two computers using hosted Exchange 2010. One system is Windows 7 and other is Windows 8. The same problems occur on BOTH computers. As far as my Outlook account setup, I have all contacts stored in the
main address book (no sub-folders or other folders).
Can someone help communicate this message to the Outlook developers??? The "Frown" button limits me to 100 characters and one image. There's no way I can communicate this level of detail and steps to duplicate in 100 characters!

Thanks for your reply.
1) The instant search boxes in each individual page work just fine. If I am on the People page and type in a name in the "Search Contacts" field, it searches my contacts and displays the results that I want. But I should not have to leave whatever screen
I'm in to find people now. In Outlook 2010 and earlier versions, I could be on the calendar page and then search for a contact without clicking off the calendar completely. For productivity-sake, it's a huge waste of time and hassle now.
2) I'm familiar with how contact linking works, and quite frankly it's a huge mess in general. I NEVER create multiple contacts for the same person. I get that Outlook 2013 get confused now when it detects a LinkedIn or Facebook account for the same person
already in my Outlook address book, but we need to have options that allow us to turn off results from some or all social networks. This is a big part of the problem.
Think about it this way - The average person has 150+ LinkedIn connections, and more for Facebook. Many people today have accounts for both and they are setup with the same email address. When Outlook 2013 has to scan all the networks IN ADDITION to your
local address book(s), it's a no brainer that it can get very confused trying to display results.
Another big part of the problem is that Outlooks new search system also scans your email history. I receive emails from people who use multiple email addresses, or emails from companies with multiple reps or ticket systems that send you a unique
ticket ID # ending in the same email address domain. Now Outlook displays people search results based on everything under the sun in my email history. This is beyond frustrating (see my "Infusionsoft" screenshot above in the first post).
Again, I want to stress that for the search examples I referenced, I only have one entry in my Outlook address book for each person. And that's all I want to find when I search for people--what's already in my own address book!
In summary:
We need an OPTION to turn off searching external networks when using the People Search box
We need an option to tell Outlook to not scan email history for people search results (I think this needs to be disabled entirely actually. It's not helpful at all)
There should be a fixed priority for displaying people search results, with local address book results FIRST, followed by social network results.
There should be a clear icon/indicator next to each result that gives you a clue as to where the result is coming from. Your address book? Facebook? LinkedIn? We should not need to click on each result to get a hint as to where it's coming from.
Work out the bugs in general with the new search system.
One other thing that I didn't mention is that the Search People box also shows results for people I'm not even "friends" or connected with on the different social networks. But I've noticed that some people use the same email address for those networks that
I already have programmed for them in my address book, which is why Outlook sometimes shows me these results. Does that make sense?
I'll try rebuilding the index, but after testing Outlook 2013 on 3 different machines so far and seeing the same results (all slightly different results on each machine and very inconsistent), I doubt this will address the issue.

Auto-refresh search result (for activities)

Hi all,
we've got a customer requirement to implement a auto-refresh function for the search result for activities, means, the search result table should automatically be updated every x minutes.
In component BT126S_APPT, view layout ApptSQ.htm, I've added the following lines of code after the thtmlb:advancedSearch tag:
window.setTimeout["document.getElementById('C16_W54_V55_Searchbtn').click();", 5000 ) ;
This script "clicks" the search button 5 secs after the search page has been loaded.
Now, the interesting thing is that this works two times, like starting the page -- javascript triggers first automatic search --search result updated -- javascript triggers second automatic search -- search result updated, but then the script isn't called ny more.
Any idea about that?
Regards
Wolfgang

Hi,
Make use of af:poll component.........
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E12839_01/apirefs.1111/e12419/tagdoc/af_poll.html
Regards,
Suganth.G

Bing search results can't be clicked for many searches.

I'm moving away from Google and am frustrated with either a bug in Firefox 13, or perhaps a plug in. I've looked at the HTML source for the Bing's search results and don't see any issues with their anchors. This doesn't happen on every search result, but the example included has been consistently not working.
Here's the sample URL
[http://www.bing.com/search?q=rewriterule+match+any+sequence+of+parameters&go=&qs=bs&form=QBRE http://www.bing.com/search?q=rewriterule+match+any+sequence+of+parameters&go=&qs=bs&form=QBRE]

I'm going to pass on that option, cor-el. I have too many settings, preferences, site info, etc to give that one a try. Anyway, here's an image illustrating the issue. I've selected the results and highlighted where the missing links are with red boxes. When the text isn't highlighted, it all appears correctly, but the boxed areas can't be clicked!
[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/brokenresults.jpg/ Screenshot of broken search results]

DEFAULT Heading, Title, Main Text...for google search result??

Hi,
Every pages when we added in iWeb it'll come with some default Text Box shown as
*"Type a heading for your webpage here", "Type the main text for your page here", "Type the title for the page" ...*
Do the above default text box helps for Google search result?
Any other useful purpose for that?

mactreouser wrote:
What bout Adding a Text Box? Isn't the same thing of the Default Title Box? Or it must be place at the Top ? or it already pre-set for search engines?
You could find out if its the same thing by doing the following:
Add a text box to your home page, publish your iWeb site to a folder, click on +"Visit Site Now"+ and then in Safari do +View > View Source+. Then look for the title tag that the article talks about:
<title>Your title here</title>

Results not updating for every row in BIpublisher

Hi all I have a Bi publisher report that is updating the results for the first row and in the second row to update the results it is picking the values from the first column itself and using the same values for all the other rows.
Here is my report format
Month saves Total, for 30,60,90,120
Jan
feb
Mar
Total are the enrolls by each month and days shows after 30,60,90,120 how many are still active. Following eg should give an idea of exactly whats happening
Eg:
Total 30days 60days 90days 120days 150days 180days 210days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan saves 330 287 274 270 263 262 259 257
Feb saves 298 255 242 238 231 230 227 225
Mar saves 291 248 235 231 224 223 220 218
So what is happening is lets say for example there are a total of 330 enrolls in january and after 30days 287 are still active and after 60days 274 are still active after 90 270...... etc
Am getting the January active values correctly.
BUt going forward when I see the values for february The total enrolls for february is 298 and after 30 days which are active is not giving me the correct.
It is substracting the same amount as jan. looking at the numbers it is substracting
-43, -13,-4,-7,-1,-3,-2 for Jan which are the cancels after the consecutive days
It is substracting the same amount for feb also but my actual cancels for feb are different it should be 45,12,8,9,2,2,
It is doing the same for all the months.
There should be a change in the code. Following is the XSL code am using in
<?xdoxslt:set_variable($_XDOCTX, 'v_SavesCanceled', SAVES_CANCELED_COUNT)?>
<?xdoxslt:set_variable($_XDOCTX, 'v_RtSaves', xdoxslt:get_variable($_XDOCTX, 'v_RtSaves') - xdoxslt:get_variable($_XDOCTX, 'v_SavesCanceled'))?>
<?xdoxslt:get_variable($_XDOCTX, 'v_RtSaves')?>
Actually the cancels should be updated for each row but its picking the same cancels for every month.
Hope it is clear let me know if you need any further info
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks

Thank you very much for your help. The rtf file sent worked and updating results as required.Thank you
Thanks

Content Search Web Part displaying wrong Results for anonymous Users.

HI Forum Group,
I am getting Wrong results for my content search web part. The requirement is to show the News Description for the selected news item.
I have a catalog site which stores News like
News1
News2
News3
as Items. and i have connected this catalog in publishing site which is anonymous. In the publishing site created one page "News.aspx"added search results webpart which shows all the news item. Added one page "Description.aspx" to show
description to show the selected news item.
When ever user selects any news from news.aspx page it will redirected to description.aspx with the selected item ID
The "Description.aspx" the search results page gets the data based on the URL by QueryString parameter as shown below
The problem is, if i multiple items to open in tabs all the items are showing the data same as the first selected item, though the article ID is different.
Thanks
Sithender

Hi，
Thank you for your feedback on how you were successful in resolving this issue.
Your solution will benefit many other users, and we really value having you as a Microsoft customer.
Have a nice day!
Best Regards，
Lisa Chen
TechNet Community Support
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help, and unmark the answers if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact
[email protected]

Returning Different Results for the Same Search Value

I'm creating a word list and I'm using Lookup to find text entries in column D and return values from column A. I can manage one result based on the search criteria however I'm wondering if it's possible to return multiple entries from column A if multiple matches are found in column D:
As you can see I'm trying to use the formula =LOOKUP("Aggression",D,A) to find all the instances of "Aggression" in column D and return all the corresponding results from column A (audacious, barefaced, and depredation). Lookup however only returns the last match (depredation).

I wish you'd shown where your LOOKUP function is located and what you're trying to do with it. Are you going to be using these results in another function? Or are you simply wanting to display the results of your search?
If the latter, there's an elegant way to make this happen. Let's create a single-cell table on the same page, holding the word you're searching for. (Ideally, this could be a drop-down list -- and that can be made to dynamicly hold all the discrete values in column D -- but that's another discussion.) Let's call this table "Search".
Add a column (which can be hidden) to your original table. Let's insert this next to your column D, making it column E. Cell E2 contains =IF($D2=Search :: $A$1,TRUE,FALSE). Drag/copy that down the column. You'll now have a value of TRUE in this column for all the words you're looking for. Now click on the top of this column E and click "Show More Options".... and click on "Show rows that match the following". Set it to show where Column E is true. You now show only the words in which the "category" matches the search word.
Change the word in your Search table, and the display of your original table automatically adjusts.
The nice part is that the entire line is displayed so you can see definitions and contexts as well.
Vince

0 results for every search

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for