Attribute based queries are just as important as spatial queries. If the above is true it would explain why I've been beating my head against my desk trying to get this done.
Here is a common of use cases for an attribute based query:
Application to find a location on a map. User types "Domino's Pizza" the application looks in the name field and puts pins on the map indicating where all of the 'Domino's Pizza parlors are. More specifically, user searches for "Big
Momma's Little Kitchen" restaurant. The application selects "Big Momma's Little Kitchen".
Replace pizza parlors with; parcel identifiers in a cadastral application, forest cover types in a forestry application, etc.
In the application I am working on, the users will be editing non-spatial information and I need to show them where, spatially on a map, the object that they are working on resides. This means that I have non-spatial identifiers that I need to be able
to query that shape file with to locate the object in question. Nothing spatial about it. No intersects, no contains, no completely within.
It appears that the only way to get access to the table underlying a vector layer is to run a dummy spatial query against it. Is this true?