Full Text Indexing

I need to store documents in a central location and search them using the features associated with Microsoft Search Service. I can either store them on SQL Server or on the server direct - using either method I can retrieve them using sql (in the case of the later I need to use the openquery method and deploy a linked server).
I am trying to work out which method I should use, at the moment I am inclined towards storing them outside the database as this seems to be quicker. Any advice about the pros and cons associated with each would be much appreciated.Dave,
Well, if you need to search them via the "Microsoft Search Service" and
you're using SQL Server 2000, then you must store the files in SQL Server in
column defined as an IMAGE datatype along with a "binding" column for the
file extension. See SQL Server 2000 Books Online (BOL) title "Filtering
Supported File Types" for more information. Note, this is a new feature of
SQL Server 2000 Full-Text Search (FTS).
If you do not have SQL Server 2000 and are using SQL Server 7.0, you can
store the files on disk with pointers to the doc in a SQL Server table and
then use the "Indexing Service" to FT index the documents and use a
openquery method and deploy a linked server. However, you will find that
compared to storing the files in SQL Server 2000, that this option will not
perform as well.
There are other considerations that may also affect your decision to store
the docs inside or outside the database, such as the number of files, (just
thousands, or millions?) as well as security/transaction control (on disk,
anyone can add, delete or modify the files). There are many factors that can
and do enter into this discussion as I've seen flame wars started over this
issue, so more information on exactly what your requirements are would be
helpful in making this decision...
Note, you can also post FTS related questions to the newsgroup:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext
Regards,
John
"Dave Walsh" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41FEB598-76FA-4D1F-9122-144F06922AD5@.microsoft.com...
> I need to store documents in a central location and search them using the
features associated with Microsoft Search Service. I can either store them
on SQL Server or on the server direct - using either method I can retrieve
them using sql (in the case of the later I need to use the openquery method
and deploy a linked server).
> I am trying to work out which method I should use, at the moment I am
inclined towards storing them outside the database as this seems to be
quicker. Any advice about the pros and cons associated with each would be
much appreciated.

Full text catalogs

I need to move my Full text catalog for SQL 2005 from one location to
another.Is there any way to do it .
Thanks>I need to move my Full text catalog for SQL 2005 from one location to
>another.Is there any way to do it .
You can use ALTER DATABASE or the FOR ATTACH clause of the CREATE DATABASE
statement. There are full-text catalog examples for both of these methods in
the BOL topic Moving User Databases.
ms-help://sql90/udb9/html/ad9a4e92-13fb-457d-996a-66ffc2d55b79.htm
--
Gail Erickson [MS]
SQL Server Documentation Team
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
Download the latest version of Books Online from
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb428874.aspx
<msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OM0w72HAIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I need to move my Full text catalog for SQL 2005 from one location to
>another.Is there any way to do it .
> Thanks
>
>

Full and Differential Backups

Does the full and differential backups have to be in the same location or can I do a once a week full backup on one drive and everyday differential backups on a different drive?

Thanks

Hi,

if you store your backup local, it's still better to have them on the same drive - by watching your systemmonitor.

But it doesn' matter wehre you store your backups.

|||

As such there is no restriction. you can have your full and differential back any where. If you are taking the backup in local machine , your backup is not fully fault tollerent. YOu should have either a network path or tape drive to store the backup.

Madhu

|||

Another thought is to do your backups to a local disk (which one makes no difference) and then archive this of to secondary storage (network share from another machine, tape, etc.)

The reason for this is that backups and restores to/from a local disk will be the fastest method. So, for your backups, and in the event of a restore due to a single bad disk (or single bad decision ) these will be optimized. Then you can add a layer of fault-tolerance by copying them off to secondary storage which will be protected in the event of a complete disaster.