Take the 2-minute tour ×
WordPress Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for WordPress developers and administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to exclude some posts from the home page. So I want to use meta data, and filter all posts that are signed by meta_value=0. Like this:

$args = array(
'posts_per_page'=>28,
'meta_query' => array(
array(
    'key' => 'show_on_home',
    'value' => '0',
    'compare' => 'NOT LIKE'
    )
)                   
);
$query = new WP_Query( $args );                         

So, if I sign some post with meta_key=0 it will not apear.
The problem is that I have a lot off posts that don't have meta data at all, and I don't want to filter them.

share|improve this question
    
You could reverse the logic and query posts that have meta key 'show_on_home' + meta value '1' –  diggy Jan 11 '13 at 13:43
    
@diggy, A lot of posts don't have meta data at all, so I can not do it –  s976 Jan 11 '13 at 13:55

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

WordPress 3.5 and up supports EXISTS and NOT EXISTS comparison operators.

compare (string) - Operator to test. Possible values are '=', '!=', '>', '>=', '<', '<=', 'LIKE', 'NOT LIKE', 'IN', 'NOT IN', 'BETWEEN', 'NOT BETWEEN', 'EXISTS' (only in WP >= 3.5), and 'NOT EXISTS' (also only in WP >= 3.5). Default value is '='.

http://codex.wordpress.org/Class_Reference/WP_Query

So...

array(
    'key' => 'show_on_home',
    'compare' => 'NOT EXISTS'
)

... should show all posts that don't have that key. I think that is what you are trying to do.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much! to inckude posts that have value=1 on this key, I use this code: $args = array( 'posts_per_page'=>28, 'meta_query' => array( 'relation' => 'OR', array( 'key' => 'show_on_home', 'value' => '0', 'compare' => 'NOT EXISTS' ), array( 'key' => 'aa_show_on_home', 'value' => '1' ) ) ); $query = new WP_Query( $args ); –  s976 Jan 12 '13 at 16:52
    
Yes, but if you don't have too many with that '1' value, you'd get better performance by resetting that value and doing without that extra condition. ORs are not very efficient. Just something to consider. –  s_ha_dum Jan 12 '13 at 16:53
    
Yes. I cheked it. it took 0.32 seconds vs 0.12 second without OR. Thank you very much! –  s976 Jan 12 '13 at 19:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.