Full text Substring search not working

I have Sql server 2005 SP2.
I enabled it for Full Text search. Substring search where i enter *word* doesn't return any row.
I have a table testtable where description has word Extinguisher.

If i run a query with *ting* it doesn't return any row.
select * from testtable where contains(description,'"*xting*"') ;

But it works if i do
select * from testtable where contains(description,'"Exting*"') ;

The Full text search document says it supports substring search.
Is it an issue with sql server 2005?Please help.SQL Server doesn't support leading wildcards. Therefore your first query will be searching on "xting*" explaining why no results are returned.

I'm not sure why MS does this. Perhaps request it for SQL2008!!

HTH.

|||Doign a short talk with a fellow MVP SimonS, this is due to the Wordbreakers which are language specified. They can only chop the words according to known word breaking settings. So it depends whether a compound word can be broken into multiple ones. Searching within the word is that case not possible, searching for the words within a compound is possible if the wordbreaker can identity the appropiate individual words.

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Full Text Search Performance

Hello,
I have full text search enabled on two large tables, the first one has 3
million records (FT index column length is around 512-1025 char), and the
other one has around 1.6 records (FT index column length is around 50-120
char)
The simplest query that uses the smiplest form of FT on the first table FT
index search needs 23-30 seconds to complete and from 10-15 seconds on the
seconds table as it the indexed column is smaller.
SQL server is deployed on 4 P servers with 8 GB of memory and attached to a
very powerful SAN system. Memory usage on the server is not very high so I
believe there is enough memory for the mssearch service to use.
I just wonder if this is the normal throughput of the Full Text search of
SQL Server. If not, I will appreciate any tips and hints that might be the
reason of the system.
Ali Salem
That depends. SQL FTS performance is most sensitive to the number of rows
you are returning. You should limit your results set as much as possible - I
think you will find that the practical limit for most applications is around
100-200 rows.
Limit it by using the the top_n_by_rank operator in ContainsTable or
FreeTextTable, ie
USE Northwind
GO
SELECT FT_TBL.Description,
FT_TBL.CategoryName,
KEY_TBL.RANK
FROM Categories AS FT_TBL INNER JOIN
CONTAINSTABLE (Categories, Description,
'test',200
) AS KEY_TBL
ON FT_TBL.CategoryID = KEY_TBL.[KEY]
ORDER BY KEY_TBL.RANK DESC
"Ali Salem" <AliSalem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CFE9CB8C-7AE4-44C3-8A3C-BC397585AC1E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have full text search enabled on two large tables, the first one has 3
> million records (FT index column length is around 512-1025 char), and the
> other one has around 1.6 records (FT index column length is around 50-120
> char)
> The simplest query that uses the smiplest form of FT on the first table FT
> index search needs 23-30 seconds to complete and from 10-15 seconds on the
> seconds table as it the indexed column is smaller.
> SQL server is deployed on 4 P servers with 8 GB of memory and attached to
a
> very powerful SAN system. Memory usage on the server is not very high so I
> believe there is enough memory for the mssearch service to use.
> I just wonder if this is the normal throughput of the Full Text search of
> SQL Server. If not, I will appreciate any tips and hints that might be the
> reason of the system.
> --
> Ali Salem
|||thanks for your reply.
I cannot limit the search in this way, as there are other parameters in my
query that can affect the returned result set and that are ourside the FTS.
I am asking for any figures about FTS performance? What should I expect from
it? Is this behavior am getting normal for the data size or, I am having
something wrong
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> That depends. SQL FTS performance is most sensitive to the number of rows
> you are returning. You should limit your results set as much as possible - I
> think you will find that the practical limit for most applications is around
> 100-200 rows.
> Limit it by using the the top_n_by_rank operator in ContainsTable or
> FreeTextTable, ie
> USE Northwind
> GO
> SELECT FT_TBL.Description,
> FT_TBL.CategoryName,
> KEY_TBL.RANK
> FROM Categories AS FT_TBL INNER JOIN
> CONTAINSTABLE (Categories, Description,
> 'test',200
> ) AS KEY_TBL
> ON FT_TBL.CategoryID = KEY_TBL.[KEY]
> ORDER BY KEY_TBL.RANK DESC
> "Ali Salem" <AliSalem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CFE9CB8C-7AE4-44C3-8A3C-BC397585AC1E@.microsoft.com...
> a
>
>
|||No, this is highly abnormal. Performance should be sub second. However I
need to know what your queries look like, ie how many search arguments, how
many rows are returned, and what language you are querying in.
"Ali Salem" <AliSalem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AECBD305-A9FD-4759-B240-B4D970B32BEA@.microsoft.com...
> thanks for your reply.
> I cannot limit the search in this way, as there are other parameters in my
> query that can affect the returned result set and that are ourside the
FTS.
> I am asking for any figures about FTS performance? What should I expect
from[vbcol=seagreen]
> it? Is this behavior am getting normal for the data size or, I am having
> something wrong
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
rows[vbcol=seagreen]
possible - I[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
3[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
50-120[vbcol=seagreen]
table FT[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
so I[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Ali Salem,
Could you provide the full output of the following SQL script as it is very
helpful in troubleshooting SQL FTS issue and understanding your environment
and issues!
use <your_database_name_here>
go
SELECT @.@.language
SELECT @.@.version
sp_configure 'default full-text language'
EXEC sp_help_fulltext_catalogs
EXEC sp_help_fulltext_tables
EXEC sp_help_fulltext_columns
EXEC sp_help <your_FT-enable_table_name_here>
SELECT FULLTEXTSERVICEPROPERTY('ResourceUsage')
go
Additionally, where is your FT Catalog located as by default it is created
under the \FTDATA directory where you have SQL Server installed as well as
where your FT-enabled database files (*.mdf, *.ndf, * *.ldf) are located
relative to the location of your FT Catalog folder? If your 'ResourceUsage
is set to 3, you should increase it to 5 (dedicated) via sp_fulltext_service
'resource_usage' <value>, where <value> is 5.
Thanks,
John
"Ali Salem" <AliSalem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CFE9CB8C-7AE4-44C3-8A3C-BC397585AC1E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I have full text search enabled on two large tables, the first one has 3
> million records (FT index column length is around 512-1025 char), and the
> other one has around 1.6 records (FT index column length is around 50-120
> char)
> The simplest query that uses the smiplest form of FT on the first table FT
> index search needs 23-30 seconds to complete and from 10-15 seconds on the
> seconds table as it the indexed column is smaller.
> SQL server is deployed on 4 P servers with 8 GB of memory and attached to
a
> very powerful SAN system. Memory usage on the server is not very high so I
> believe there is enough memory for the mssearch service to use.
> I just wonder if this is the normal throughput of the Full Text search of
> SQL Server. If not, I will appreciate any tips and hints that might be the
> reason of the system.
> --
> Ali Salem
|||Thanks.
- We are using enlgihs language.
- Returned number of rows should be very large (thousands, in some cases it
can be 100, 000). this from the Full-Text Seach, other SQL filters will be
applied as well, but from mssearch this is what will be returned. Please note
that the table size is around 3million records.
- The smiplest query such as SELECT * FROM TABLE1 WHERE CONTAINS(COL1,
'ABCD') need around 30 seconds complete.
I do appreciate any help.
thank you
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> No, this is highly abnormal. Performance should be sub second. However I
> need to know what your queries look like, ie how many search arguments, how
> many rows are returned, and what language you are querying in.
>
> "Ali Salem" <AliSalem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AECBD305-A9FD-4759-B240-B4D970B32BEA@.microsoft.com...
> FTS.
> from
> rows
> possible - I
> around
> 3
> the
> 50-120
> table FT
> the
> to
> so I
> of
> the
>
>
|||Below are the result of the script you requested me to run it:
My FT files are stored on SAN storage. So IO should be performing well.
Regarding the ResourceUsage, it is 3. Will not raising it to 5 harm the sql
server performance! I dont want to make the full text search fast by slowing
down SQL Server itself.
I have splitted the result into two posts so that I can post it here.
Thank you for you help
------
us_english
(1 row(s) affected)
------
------
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.534 (Intel X86)
Nov 19 2001 13:23:50
Copyright (c) 1988-2000 Microsoft Corporation
Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 3)
(1 row(s) affected)
name minimum maximum config_value
run_value
-- -- -- --
default full-text language 0 2147483647 1033 1033
ftcatid NAME
PATH
STATUS NUMBER_FULLTEXT_TABLES
------
------
------
-- -- --
5 ICSubject
L:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\FTDATA
0 1
6 Subject
L:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\FTDATA
0 1
7 Names
L:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\FTDATA
0 1
(3 row(s) affected)
TABLE_OWNER
TABLE_NAME
FULLTEXT_KEY_INDEX_NAME
FULLTEXT_KEY_COLID FULLTEXT_INDEX_ACTIVE FULLTEXT_CATALOG_NAME
------
------
------
-- -- --
----
dbo
IC_SUBJECTS
PK_IC_SUBJECTS
1 1 ICSubject
dbo
MAIN
PK_INOUT_MAIN
1 1 Subject
dbo
PERSONS
PK_PERSONS
1 1 Names
(3 row(s) affected)
TABLE_OWNER
TABLE_ID TABLE_NAME
FULLTEXT_COLUMN_NAME
FULLTEXT_COLID FULLTEXT_BLOBTP_COLNAME
FULLTEXT_BLOBTP_COLID
FULLTEXT_LANGUAGE
------
-- --
-----
-----
-- --
--- --
dbo
2069582411 IC_SUBJECTS
ITEM_DESCRIPTION_AR
3 NULL
NULL 0
dbo
274100017 MAIN
SUBJECT
42 NULL
NULL 0
dbo
466100701 PERSONS
FIRSTNAME_AR
4 NULL
NULL 0
dbo
466100701 PERSONS
LASTNAME_AR
8 NULL
NULL 0
dbo
466100701 PERSONS
FULL_NAME
9 NULL
NULL 0
dbo
466100701 PERSONS
FATHERNAME_AR
12 NULL
NULL 0
dbo
466100701 PERSONS
GRANDFATHERNAME_AR
14 NULL
NULL 0
(7 row(s) affected)
Name
Owner
Type Created_datetime
------
------
-- --
MAIN
dbo
user table 2004-10-14 18:14:31.457
|||The Rest of the script result, one more post is required
Column_name
Type
Computed Length Prec Scale Nullable
TrimTrailingBlanks
FixedLenNullInSource Collation
------
------
-- -- -- -- --
-- --
-- --
DOCID
int
no 4 10 0 no
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
DESCRIPTION
varchar
no 255 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
DOCDATE
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
RDOCDATE
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
EXT_PARTY_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
EXT_PARTY_REP_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
SUBCAT_ID
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
STATUS_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
CONFID_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
REFERENCE_NO
varchar
no 50 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
FORWARD_TO
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
FORWARD_DATE
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
TO_REMIND
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
REMIND_DATE
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
REMARKS
varchar
no 1024 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
REVISION_NO
varchar
no 50 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
TRAN_DATE
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
USER_ID
varchar
no 32 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
SYSTEM_ID
varchar
no 50 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
IP
varchar
no 50 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
CHECK_SUM
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
SUBMIT_TYPE
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
SUBJECT_TYPE
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
SUBJECT
nvarchar
no 8000 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) Arabic_CI_AS
PRIORITY_NO
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
PROCESS_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
REMIND_TIME
varchar
no 20 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
WAITING_FOR_REPLY
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
SITE_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
DELIVERY_METHOD_ID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
GROUPID
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
LINK_STATUS
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
INITIAL_PROCEDURE
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
CREATOR_USER_ID
varchar
no 32 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
IS_SPLITTED
bit
no 1 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
CHAR_FIELD2
varchar
no 500 yes
no
no Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD5_AR
nvarchar
no 100 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) Arabic_CI_AS
NUM_FIELD1
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
CHAR_FIELD66_AR
nvarchar
no 2000 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) Arabic_CI_AS
NUM_FIELD6
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
FLOAT_FIELD1
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
FLOAT_FIELD2
int
no 4 10 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
NUM_FIELD2
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
NUM_FIELD3
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
NUM_FIELD4
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
NUM_FIELD5
decimal
no 9 18 0 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
DATE_FIELD1
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
DATE_FIELD2
datetime
no 8 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) NULL
CHAR_FIELD1
char
no 50 yes
no
yes Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD3
char
no 50 yes
no
yes Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD4
char
no 50 yes
no
yes Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD5
char
no 50 yes
no
yes Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD1_AR
nvarchar
no 510 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD2_AR
nvarchar
no 510 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) Arabic_CI_AS
CHAR_FIELD4_AR
nvarchar
no 510 yes
(n/a)
(n/a) Arabic_CI_AS
Identity
Seed Increment
Not For Replication
------
-- ---
--- --
No identity column defined.
NULL NULL
NULL
RowGuidCol
------
No rowguidcol column defined.
Data_located_on_filegroup
------
SECONDARY2
|||Last post of the script result.
index_name
index_description
index_keys
------
------
----- --
------
IX_Index1
nonclustered located on SECONDARY2
DOCID, STATUS_ID, CABID, YEAR,
CONFID_ID, DELIVERY_PLACE, PRIORITY_NO,
IX_Index2
nonclustered located on SECONDARY4
INOUTDOCNO, CABID, DOC_ORIGN_SOURCE,
YEAR, DOCDATE, OUTBOUND_REQUEST
IX_Index3
nonclustered located on SECONDARY2
GROUPID
IX_Index4
nonclustered located on SECONDARY4
YEAR, EXT_DOCNO, RDOCDATE_HJ,
EXT_PARTY_ID, DIWAN_REP_ID, EXT_PARTY_REP_ID
IX_Index5
nonclustered located on SECONDARY2
REQUEST_NO
IX_Index6
nonclustered located on SECONDARY4
STATUS_ID, CABID
PK_MAIN
clustered, unique, primary key located on SECONDARY2
DOCNO
constraint_type
constraint_name
delete_action update_action status_enabled
status_for_replication constraint_keys
------
-- -- -- --
-- --
------
-----
DEFAULT on column OUTBOUND_REQUEST
DF_MAIN_OUTBOUND_REQUEST
(n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
(0)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_EMPLOYEES
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication USER_ID
REFERENCES dbo.EMPLOYEES (EMP_NO)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_EMPLOYEES1
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication WRITER_ID
REFERENCES dbo.EMPLOYEES (EMP_NO)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_EMPLOYEES2
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication CREATOR_USER_ID
REFERENCES dbo.EMPLOYEES (EMP_NO)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_CONFIDENTIAL
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication CONFID_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_CONFIDENTIAL (
TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_DOC_SOURCE_TYPE
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication DOC_ORIGN_SOURCE
REFERENCES dbo.LO_DOC_SOURCE_TYPE
(TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_LOOKUPS
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication DELIVERY_METHOD_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_LOOKUPS (TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_LOOKUPS1
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication LINK_STATUS
REFERENCES dbo.LO_LOOKUPS (TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_LOOKUPS4
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication RECEIVE_METHOD_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_LOOKUPS (TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_PRIORITY
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication PRIORITY_NO
REFERENCES dbo.LO_PRIORITY (TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_SELECTION
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication EXT_PARTY_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_SELECTION (
TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_SELECTION1
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication EXT_PARTY_REP_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_SELECTION (
TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_SELECTION2
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication CITY_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_SELECTION (
TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_SIGNATURE_TYPE
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication DIWAN_REP_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_SIGNATURE_TYPE (
TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_SITE
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication DELIVERY_PLACE
REFERENCES dbo.LO_SITE (SITE_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_LO_STATUS
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication STATUS_ID
REFERENCES dbo.LO_STATUS (TAB_ID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_MAIN_GROUP_HDR
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication GROUPID
REFERENCES dbo.MAIN_GROUP_HDR (
GROUPID)
FOREIGN KEY
FK_MAIN_PROCESSES
No Action No Action Enabled
Not_For_Replication INITIAL_PROCEDURE
REFERENCES dbo.PROCESSES (
PROCESS_ID)
PRIMARY KEY (clustered)
PK_MAIN
(n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
DOCNO
Table is referenced by foreign key
------
------
dbo.TASKS: FK_TASKS_MAIN
dbo.ASKST_CHAIN: FK_TASKS_CHAIN_MAIN
dbo.ATTACHMENTS: FK_ATTACHMENTS_MAIN
dbo.ATTACHMENTS: FK_ATTACHMENTS_MAIN1
dbo.ATTACHMENTS_MOV: FK_ATTACH_MOV_MAIN
dbo.COPY: FK_COPY_MAIN
dbo.INQUIRY: FK_INQUIRY_MAIN
dbo.LINKS_F: FK_LINKS_F_MAIN
dbo.CLASS: FK_CLASS_MAIN
dbo.XLASS: FK_CLASS_MAIN
dbo.REQUEST: FK_REQUEST_MAIN
dbo.REQUEST_DTL: FK_REQUEST_DTL_MAIN
dbo.MAIN_FOLLOW: FK_MAIN_FOLLOW_MAIN
dbo.MAIN_GROUP_DTL: FK_MAIN_GROUP_DTL_MAIN
dbo.MAIN_TRACK: FK_MAIN_TRACK_MAIN
dbo.PERSONS: FK_PERSONS_MAIN
dbo.RESERVED: FK_RESERVED_MAIN
dbo.SAVE_TRACK: FK_SAVE_TRACK_MAIN
Table is referenced by views
------
3
(1 row(s) affected)
|||Ali,
First of all, thank you for providing this info as it is most helpful! You
are using SQL Server 2000 SP2 on Windows 2000 Server SP3 and your default
language is US_English (1033). However, all of your char, varchar and
nvarchar columns using the Arabic_CI_AS collation with the FT-enabled column
"Language for Word Breaker" set to Neutral. Can I assume that these column
contain Arabic text?
Yes, I can understand why you want the Resource_Usage level to remain at 3,
but you might try setting to 5, as you can always set it lower if it is
affecting your other SQL Server processing. Although, this bump in the
MSSearch resource usage might not be significant. Note, it affect how much
memory MSSearch can use up to a max if 512MB RAM, if available as well as
the number of concurrent connections allowed.
What is the drive letter for your SAN storage? Could you also run the
following SQL query and post it's results?
sp_helpdb <full_text_enabled_database_name>
I'm not sure if the use of Arabic text is causing the poor query performance
(even with the Neutral wordbreaker), but language is a consideration with
FTS query performance issues.
Thanks again,
John
"Ali Salem" <AliSalem@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D20604B8-21E5-496F-A957-1F1CF8949716@.microsoft.com...
> Last post of the script result.
>
>
> index_name
>
> index_description
>
> index_keys
>
>
>
> ----
----
> --
> ----

> ----
-- --
> ----
----
> ----
--
> IX_Index1
>
> nonclustered located on SECONDARY2
>
> DOCID, STATUS_ID, CABID, YEAR,
> CONFID_ID, DELIVERY_PLACE, PRIORITY_NO,
> IX_Index2
>
> nonclustered located on SECONDARY4
>
> INOUTDOCNO, CABID, DOC_ORIGN_SOURCE,
> YEAR, DOCDATE, OUTBOUND_REQUEST
> IX_Index3
>
> nonclustered located on SECONDARY2
>
> GROUPID
> IX_Index4
>
> nonclustered located on SECONDARY4
>
> YEAR, EXT_DOCNO, RDOCDATE_HJ,
> EXT_PARTY_ID, DIWAN_REP_ID, EXT_PARTY_REP_ID
> IX_Index5
>
> nonclustered located on SECONDARY2
>
> REQUEST_NO
> IX_Index6
>
> nonclustered located on SECONDARY4
>
> STATUS_ID, CABID
> PK_MAIN
>
> clustered, unique, primary key located on SECONDARY2
>
> DOCNO
>
> constraint_type
>
> constraint_name
>
> delete_action update_action status_enabled
> status_for_replication constraint_keys
>
>
>
> ----
----
> --
> ----
--
> -- -- -- --
> -- --
> ----
----
> ----
--
> DEFAULT on column OUTBOUND_REQUEST
>
> DF_MAIN_OUTBOUND_REQUEST
>
> (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
> (0)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_EMPLOYEES
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication USER_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.EMPLOYEES (EMP_NO)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_EMPLOYEES1
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication WRITER_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.EMPLOYEES (EMP_NO)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_EMPLOYEES2
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication CREATOR_USER_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.EMPLOYEES (EMP_NO)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_CONFIDENTIAL
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication CONFID_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_CONFIDENTIAL (
> TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_DOC_SOURCE_TYPE
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication DOC_ORIGN_SOURCE
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_DOC_SOURCE_TYPE
> (TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_LOOKUPS
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication DELIVERY_METHOD_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_LOOKUPS (TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_LOOKUPS1
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication LINK_STATUS
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_LOOKUPS (TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_LOOKUPS4
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication RECEIVE_METHOD_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_LOOKUPS (TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_PRIORITY
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication PRIORITY_NO
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_PRIORITY (TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_SELECTION
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication EXT_PARTY_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_SELECTION (
> TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_SELECTION1
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication EXT_PARTY_REP_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_SELECTION (
> TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_SELECTION2
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication CITY_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_SELECTION (
> TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_SIGNATURE_TYPE
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication DIWAN_REP_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_SIGNATURE_TYPE (
> TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_SITE
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication DELIVERY_PLACE
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_SITE (SITE_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_LO_STATUS
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication STATUS_ID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.LO_STATUS (TAB_ID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_MAIN_GROUP_HDR
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication GROUPID
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.MAIN_GROUP_HDR (
> GROUPID)
> FOREIGN KEY
>
> FK_MAIN_PROCESSES
>
> No Action No Action Enabled
> Not_For_Replication INITIAL_PROCEDURE
>
>
>
> REFERENCES dbo.PROCESSES (
> PROCESS_ID)
> PRIMARY KEY (clustered)
>
> PK_MAIN
>
> (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
> DOCNO
>
> Table is referenced by foreign key
>
>
>
> ----
----
> ----
----
> --
> dbo.TASKS: FK_TASKS_MAIN
> dbo.ASKST_CHAIN: FK_TASKS_CHAIN_MAIN
> dbo.ATTACHMENTS: FK_ATTACHMENTS_MAIN
> dbo.ATTACHMENTS: FK_ATTACHMENTS_MAIN1
> dbo.ATTACHMENTS_MOV: FK_ATTACH_MOV_MAIN
> dbo.COPY: FK_COPY_MAIN
> dbo.INQUIRY: FK_INQUIRY_MAIN
> dbo.LINKS_F: FK_LINKS_F_MAIN
> dbo.CLASS: FK_CLASS_MAIN
> dbo.XLASS: FK_CLASS_MAIN
> dbo.REQUEST: FK_REQUEST_MAIN
> dbo.REQUEST_DTL: FK_REQUEST_DTL_MAIN
> dbo.MAIN_FOLLOW: FK_MAIN_FOLLOW_MAIN
> dbo.MAIN_GROUP_DTL: FK_MAIN_GROUP_DTL_MAIN
> dbo.MAIN_TRACK: FK_MAIN_TRACK_MAIN
> dbo.PERSONS: FK_PERSONS_MAIN
> dbo.RESERVED: FK_RESERVED_MAIN
> dbo.SAVE_TRACK: FK_SAVE_TRACK_MAIN
> Table is referenced by views
>
> ----
----
> --
>
> --
> 3
> (1 row(s) affected)
>
sql

Full Text Search 'Near'

using SQL server 2005 I have a table which has full text search index enabled

when I run a search using the 'Near' option it returns rows which meet the criteria, how ever the criteria are not 'near' each other they are several hundred words apart.

What is the problem

How near is near

thanks in advance

Glyn

Hi,

The NEAR operator is used to find words which are in close proximity to one another. For example, consider the following three rows in a table:

TextValue

==========

The product being used is SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition

We are using full text search in SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition

We are performing a test with full text search in SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition

Now if I have a query of the following type:

select TextValue

from dbo.sample_tbl

where contains (TextValue, 'search NEAR Server')

This will return the 2nd and the 3rd rows as both the words are approximately close to each other. The NEAR operator returns those rows which have both the words approximately close to each other. When several proximity terms are chained, all proximity terms must be near each other.

|||

Thanks but the search I have is not working

I have a text string

'FTS_STRING_SAMPLE1 can control instantiation to suit the system environment. Relying on delayed instantiation minimizes the amount of memory required by the application, although it might trigger many server requests when properties are referenced.

Instance classes, objects that represent real database objects, can exist in three levels of instantiation. These are minimal-instantiated (only the minimal required properties are read in one block), partially instantiated (all the properties that use a relatively large amount of memory are read in one block), and fully instantiated. Un-instantiated and fully instantiated are the traditional states of instantiation. The partially instantiated state increases efficiency because a partially instantiated object does not contain values for the full set of object properties. Partial instantiation is the default state for an object that is not directly referenced. When one of these properties is referenced, a fault is generated that prompts a full instantiation of the object FTS_STRING_SAMPLE2.'

SELECT *
FROM FTS_TEST_TABLE
WHERE CONTAINS(FTS_TEST_TEXT, 'FTS_STRING_SAMPLE1 NEAR FTS_STRING_SAMPLE2');

It returns the row, however we believe it shouldn't

Glyn

Full text Search doesnt find a specific string

Hi all,
We have a table that is full text enabled and it is working fine, but the full text search doesn't returns any record for the following case

select * from let_catalog_search where contains(search_field,'"Bulk Process 1*"')
even though there exist records that satisfy the condition in the table,
the record that i am talking abt is "bulk process 1 with price bp100-ilt1-00200136 bp100-ilt1"

If I remove the last 1 from the search string i get lot of records, Can anybody help me out.Hi all,
We have a table that is full text enabled and it is working fine, but the full text search doesn't returns any record for the following case

select * from let_catalog_search where contains(search_field,'"Bulk Process 1*"')
even though there exist records that satisfy the condition in the table,
the record that i am talking abt is "bulk process 1 with price bp100-ilt1-00200136 bp100-ilt1"

If I remove the last 1 from the search string i get lot of records, Can anybody help me out.

Im guessing here, but I think it is looking for records having one or more "words" that start with 1 (e.g. 1hs, 1tv, 1rquut). I'm not certain that the process would find just "1").

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Regards,

hmscott|||Thanks for your suggestion. Could you do me one more favor and modify the SQL query that I had put up in the previuos post to return the record that I am talking about.sql

Full text indexing scheduler SQL

Hi all,
I'm hosting a site on DiscountASP and since I have full text enabled
I
need to schedule the population. However, they don't allow using SQL
Enterprise Manager and said I have to use SQL to do it. I'm really
having a hard time finding a sample code. Can someone please show me
an example of doing this? Let's say my database is called
'DatabaseA',
my table is call 'TableA' and I have full text enabled on two columns
'ColA' and 'ColB'.
Thank you
Maz"maflatoun@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm hosting a site on DiscountASP and since I have full text enabled
> I
> need to schedule the population. However, they don't allow using SQL
> Enterprise Manager and said I have to use SQL to do it. I'm really
> having a hard time finding a sample code. Can someone please show me
> an example of doing this? Let's say my database is called
> 'DatabaseA',
> my table is call 'TableA' and I have full text enabled on two columns
> 'ColA' and 'ColB'.
>
> Thank you
> Maz
>
Hi
Look at the topic "Administering Full-Text Features Using SQL Enterprise
Manager" which also has all the Transact-SQL examples for the stored
procedures used to administer FTS.
John

FTS CONTAINS not working

Hi There,

I have table called tblFileInfo, full text indexing is done on the field KEYWORDS
FTS is enabled on the server. I have done full population.
If I use Like 21 results are returned, but using Contains is not returning any results what may be the cause.

0 results returned
Select * From tblFileInfo Where Contains(Keywords,'abc')

21 results returned
Select * From tblFileInfo Where Keywords like '%abc%'

Regards
Rohan

Please note that those two queries are not same.

Contains(keywords, 'abc') will return rows has exact word 'abc'.

like '%abc%' will return any row which contains substring 'abc', for example, rows contains "fooabcbar", "foo abcbar", etc.

So depend on the data in your table, you may get match by like query but not contains query.

thanks,

Jingwei

|||

Hi Jingwei,

in the field KEYWORDS there are values as ABC which CONTAINS may return normally, not 21 but atleast records having abc as a whole word should be returned but it not happening, CONTAINS is not working at all.

Pls Help

Regards
Rohan

|||

What is itemcount on the full-text index? You can use objectproperty(<table_id>, 'TableFulltextItemCount') to get it. "abc" is not in noise word list and contains should be able to find it. Please check SQL<dbid>+<catalogid>.LOG file under sql LOG directory to see if there is any suspecials error.

If you can attach a repro script, I can try out on my machine.

thanks

|||Hi Rohan,

I'm currently marking one of Jingwei's replies as a correct answer until you provide more information for us to reproduce the problem. You can unmark the question as being a correct answer and this will bring it to our attention again.

Alternatively, if you found a resolution to your problem, please post it here as it will help others troublehsooting similar problems.

Regards,
Boris.