[wp-hackers] questioning the efficiency of using custom post types
icwordpress at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 00:50:37 UTC 2011
One of the differences of using pods vs traditional way is that the post
items are not stored in the wp_posts table. Can you comment a little bit on
pro's and con's on this? One con I see is that those pods' posts would not
be searched by the default search. How do we make sure that a search cover
imagine if you have video / audio / and article posts that covers a variety
of subjects from politics to sports..
if implemented the traditional way, one can search for obama and all posts
that has that term in the title or content shows up across all the custom
post types whether they belong to video / audio or post...
if the same information were to be architected using pods, how would such a
search be performed?
now If I search for
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Scott Kingsley Clark <scott at skcdev.com>wrote:
> That's right scribu, Pods does just that. Actually, in Pods 2.0 (alpha/
> beta testing coming soon, seems like I've been saying that forever
> now, but also seems like I'm getting delays thrown at me at every
> corner too) we've added the ability to utilize Custom Post Types and
> extend them to their own tables. It uses all the same WP functions you
> would normally use, the data just lives somewhere else and you get the
> huge benefit of the PHP classes we've got within Pods to do some
> powerful lookups and such really easily.
> On Oct 30, 11:33 am, scribu <scr... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Haluk Karamete <halukkaram... at gmail.com
> > > what do you say about this approach?
> > > more efficient?
> > > totally useless?
> > > already exists?
> > Already exists:http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/pods/
> > --http://scribu.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hack... at lists.automattic.comhttp://
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers