FTS capabilities + questions

Hello,
I have some questions about Full Text Search and how to handle a
scenario that I have. The database that I am going to hit up against
has 80 tables and over 250 fields that will be searched for FTS. This
database has 600 + tables in it so 80 is needed to make the search
meaningfull for the user.
What is the best method to use FTS against so many tables?
Could I build a massive query that dumps the results into a single
table for searching?
Can I use the 80 tables and use some kind of dynamic query to do my
joins so that it scales?
I know this problem isnt unique to our company but just wondering how
some of the gurus have solved this problem?
Thanks in advance.
That really depends on the queries you have. Ideally you will have a single
table which you full text index. The queries themselves against the
full-text indexes are processed separately from the queries against the
tables, so it is somewhat asynchronous.
Adding this asynchronous nature to 80 tables means that you do not have a
scalable solution.
HTH
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
<tmueller@.teewebco.com> wrote in message
news:1163098034.044676.194200@.h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello,
> I have some questions about Full Text Search and how to handle a
> scenario that I have. The database that I am going to hit up against
> has 80 tables and over 250 fields that will be searched for FTS. This
> database has 600 + tables in it so 80 is needed to make the search
> meaningfull for the user.
> What is the best method to use FTS against so many tables?
> Could I build a massive query that dumps the results into a single
> table for searching?
> Can I use the 80 tables and use some kind of dynamic query to do my
> joins so that it scales?
>
> I know this problem isnt unique to our company but just wondering how
> some of the gurus have solved this problem?
> Thanks in advance.
>
|||Thanks for the fast response.
How about doing the queries up front and stuffing the results into a
single field that is searchable?
Is this the preferred method when encountering many tables like me?
Hilary Cotter wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> That really depends on the queries you have. Ideally you will have a single
> table which you full text index. The queries themselves against the
> full-text indexes are processed separately from the queries against the
> tables, so it is somewhat asynchronous.
> Adding this asynchronous nature to 80 tables means that you do not have a
> scalable solution.
> HTH
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> <tmueller@.teewebco.com> wrote in message
> news:1163098034.044676.194200@.h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
|||Sure, this is an option, but then you would have to full-text index this on
the fly. One other option comes to mind, and that is if you are using SQL
2005, you might be able to full-text index an index view which represents
your underlying tables.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"teewebco" <tmueller@.teewebco.com> wrote in message
news:1163101288.921588.258730@.f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Thanks for the fast response.
> How about doing the queries up front and stuffing the results into a
> single field that is searchable?
> Is this the preferred method when encountering many tables like me?
>
>
> Hilary Cotter wrote:
>
|||Ill take a look at that. Thanks!