OnDemand User Group
Support Forums => MP Server => Topic started by: fnb4321 on June 06, 2017, 09:54:50 AM
-
I have a file (attached and is not live data) that I need to only create an index for the MEMOSTMT pages (which is only 2 pages in the file) and not have the rest of the data in the index. I have tried a couple things and I can get the one index but it contains more than just the 2 MEMOSTMT pages. I am indexing on the small gray font at the bottom of Page 1. I have also attached some indexing parameters I have tried.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can filter out everything except for the 2 MEMOSTMT pages ? Is it even possible?
I am using the PDF indexer with X/Y coordinates and we are at 9.5.0.2
Any assistance or insight would be greatly appreciated.
-
Did You try PPD stuff?
-
Unfortunately it is a file coming from a vendor
-
Does the vendor have the ability to reformat that footer? Possibly move MEMOSTMT to just after OnDemand?
-
Can you index off of "Mail statement to" or is that an image instead of text.
I haven't had a requirement to index a PDF graphically in a few years, but that's how I would have done it
-
How about a single trigger 'OnDemand' and then have a doc_type index of 'CARDSTMT' and 'MEMOSTMT' This should break the PDF into separate documents
-
I reached out to IBM support and they stated there was no way to do what I was trying to accomplish (remember I didn't want it broken out into separate documents as some of you suggested because the CARDSTMT customers had to be able to view the MEMOSTMT data).
So, what I ended up doing was processing the input file twice. The first time I indexed on "CARDSTMT" only which allowed all the MEMOSTMT data following to be viewed by the CARDSTMT user.
I created a different app group for the 2nd time I processed it and indexed by the string "OnDemand" which indexed it into separate documents but I then added a SQL query restriction so that CARDSTMT index could not be viewed by any users (for this 2nd app group).
So - the end result was what I wanted to achieve but I am unfortunately storing some redundant data that is just not viewable by users.
-
Ugh. Yeah, this isn't optimal.
Can you write something up about this requirement and submit it to the Enhancement Forum? You aren't likely to be the only person with this (or a similar) requirement. Spend some time thinking about how it should work to be the most flexible, and write down your thoughts on that too, so the developers have a better idea of what you're trying to achieve.
Thanks.
-JD.