Search Results

Search found 30 results on 2 pages for 'containstable'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • SQL Server 2008 ContainsTable, CTE, and Paging

    - by David Murdoch
    I'd like to perform efficient paging using containstable. The following query selects the top 10 ranked results from my database using containstable when searching for a name (first or last) that begins with "Joh". DECLARE @Limit int; SET @Limit = 10; SELECT TOP @Limit c.ChildID, c.PersonID, c.DOB, c.Gender FROM [Person].[vFullName] AS v INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE( [Person].[vFullName], (FullName), IS ABOUT ( "Joh*" WEIGHT (.4), "Joh" WEIGHT (.6)) ) AS k3 ON v.PersonID = k3.[KEY] JOIN [Child].[Details] c ON c.PersonID = v.PersonID JOIN [Person].[Details] p ON p.PersonID = c.PersonID ORDER BY k3.RANK DESC, FullName ASC, p.Active DESC, c.ChildID ASC I'd like to combine it with the following CTE which returns the 10th-20th results ordered by ChildID (the primary key): DECLARE @Start int; DECLARE @Limit int; SET @Start = 10; SET @Limit = 10; WITH ChildEntities AS ( SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ChildID) AS Row, ChildID FROM Child.Details ) SELECT c.ChildID, c.PersonID, c.DOB, c.Gender FROM ChildEntities cte INNER JOIN Child.Details c ON cte.ChildID = c.ChildID WHERE cte.Row BETWEEN @Start+1 AND @Start+@Limit ORDER BY cte.Row ASC

    Read the article

  • CONTAINSTABLE with wildcard works different in SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008?

    - by musuk
    I have two same databases one on SQL Server 2005 and one on SQL Server 2008, it have same SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS Collation, and full text search catalogs have the same settings. These two databases contains table with same data, NTEXT string: "...kræve en forklaring fra miljøminister Connie Hedegaard.." My problem is: CONTAINSTABLE on SQL Server 2008 finds nothing if query is: select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"miljø*"') ct but SQL Server 2005 works perfectly and finds necessary record. SQL Server 2008 finds necessary record if query is: select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"milj*"') ct or select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"miljøminister"') What can be reason for so strange behavior?

    Read the article

  • CONTAINSTABLE with wildcard works different in SQLServer 2005 and SQLServer 2008?

    - by musuk
    I have two same databases one on SQLServer 2005 and one on SqlServer 2008, it have same SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS Collation, and full text search catalogs have the same settings. These two databases contains table with same data, NTEXT string: "...kræve en forklaring fra miljøminister Connie Hedegaard.." My problem is: CONTAINSTABLE on SQLServer 2008 finds nothing if query is: select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"miljø*"') ct but SQLServer 2005 works perfectly and finds necessary record. SQLServer 2008 finds necessary record if query is: select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"milj*"') ct or select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"miljøminister"') What can be reason for so strange behavior?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use ContainsTable to get results for more than one column?

    - by LockeCJ
    Consider the following table: People FirstName nvarchar(50) LastName nvarchar(50) Let's assume for the moment that this table has a full-text index on it for both columns. Let's suppose that I wanted to find all of the people named "John Smith" in this table. The following query seems like a perfectly rational way to accomplish this: SELECT * from People p INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(People,*,'"John*" AND "Smith*"') Unfortunately, this will return no results, assuming that there is no record in the People table that contains both "John" and "Smith" in either the FirstName or LastName columns. It will not match a record with "John" in the FirstName column, and "Smith" in the LastName column, or vice-versa. My question is this: How does one accomplish what I'm trying to do above? Please consider that the example above is simplified. The real table I'm working with has ten columns and the input I'm receiving is a single string which is split up based on standard word breakers (space, dash, etc.)

    Read the article

  • [SQL] Full-text search CONTAINSTABLE

    - by Alexander Vanwynsberghe
    Hello, I have a question regarding a CONTAINSTABLE function. I would like to find everything that ENDS WITH the search string. I can use the * to find everything that starts with the searchvalue, but I want an equivalent for the % sign in the SQL LIKE function. What I want: find everything that ends with 123, so as searchvalue, I could use "*123" in my CONTAINSTABLE function. But that doesn't work.. If I want all results starting with 123, I use "123*", and that works well. But what's the equivalent for -- LIKE %123 ?? it isn't "*123" in the CONTAINSTABLE function. What is it then? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Having trouble using 'AND' in CONTAINSTABLE SQL SERVER FULL TEXT SEARCH

    - by Joshua
    I've been using FULL-TEXT for awhile but I cannot seem to get the most relevant results sometimes. If I have an field with something like "An Overview of Pain Medicine 5/12/2006" and a user types "An Overview 5/12/2006" So we create a search like: '"An" AND "Overview" AND "5/12/2006"' - 0 results (bad) '"Overview" AND "5/12/2006"' - 1 result (good) The CONTAINSTABLE portion of my query: FROM ce_Activity A INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(View_Activities,(Searchable), @Search) AS KeyTbl ON A.ActivityID = KeyTbl.[KEY] "Searchable" is a field contains the activity title, and start date(converted to string) in one field so it's all search friendly. Why would this happen?

    Read the article

  • Poor execution plans when using a filter and CONTAINSTABLE in a query

    - by Paul McLoughlin
    We have an interesting problem that I was hoping someone could help to shed some light on. At a high level the problem is as below: The following query executes quickly (1 second): SELECT SA.* FROM cg.SEARCHSERVER_ACTYS AS SA JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(CG.SEARCHSERVER_ACTYS, NOTE, 'reports') AS T1 ON T1.[Key]=SA.UNIQUE_ID but if we add a filter to the query, then it takes approximately 2 minutes to return: SELECT SA.* FROM cg.SEARCHSERVER_ACTYS AS SA JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(CG.SEARCHSERVER_ACTYS, NOTE, 'reports') AS T1 ON T1.[Key]=SA.UNIQUE_ID WHERE SA.CHG_DATE'19 Feb 2010' Looking at the execution plan for the two queries, I can see that in the second case there are two places where there are huge differences between the actual and estimated number of rows, these being: 1) For the FulltextMatch table valued function where the estimate is approx 22,000 rows and the actual is 29 million rows (which are then filtered down to 1670 rows before the join) and 2) For the index seek on the full text index, where the estimate is 1 row and the actual is 13,000 rows As a result of the estimates, the optimiser is choosing to use a nested loops join (since it assumes a small number of rows) hence the plan is inefficient. We can work around the problem by either (a) parameterising the query and adding an OPTION (OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN) to the query or (b) by forcing a HASH JOIN to be used. In both of these cases the query returns in sub 1 second and the estimates appear reasonable. My question really is 'why are the estimates being used in the poorly performing case so wildly inaccurate and what can be done to improve them'? Statistics are up to date on the indexes on the indexed view being used here. Any help greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • MSSQL 2008 FTS CONTAINSTABLE Not Returning More Than Five Rows

    - by Elijah Glover
    I have a single table called "Indexes", it contains one nvarchar and three ntext columns (all Full Text Indexes). Index is up to date. CONTAINSTABLE(Indexes, *), 'test', 5) //5 results No matter what I change the above keyword too, it only returns the first 3-5 results. It should roughly return 90-120 results, for the above query. SELECT count(*) FROM Indexes WHERE [Description] like '%test%' //122 results How would I start to troubleshoot this problem?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 FTS CONTAINSTABLE Not Returning More Than Five Rows

    - by Elijah Glover
    I have a single table called "Indexes", it contains one nvarchar and three ntext columns (all Full Text Indexes). Index is up to date. CONTAINSTABLE(Indexes, *), 'test', 5) //5 results No matter what I change the above keyword too, it only returns the first 3-5 results. It should roughly return 90-120 results, for the above query. SELECT count(*) FROM Indexes WHERE [Description] like '%test%' //122 results How would I start to troubleshoot this problem?

    Read the article

  • How to apply Containstable 4 two join table?

    - by jaykanth
    product table pid modelnumber 1 a 2 b 3 c ProductTransation pid name description... 1 ball ball 2 bat cricket bat i create fullText for Modelnumber in product table. " for name & Description in productTrasaction table. Now i want to join this table if i search through modelnumber or name result should be pid name modelnumber 1 ball a

    Read the article

  • Sql serve Full Text Search with Containstable is very slow when Used in JOIN!

    - by Bob
    Hello, I am using sql 2008 full text search and I am having serious issues with performance depending on how I use Contains or ContainsTable. Here are sample: (table one has about 5000 records and there is a covered index on table1 which has all the fields in the where clause. I tried to simplify the statements so forgive me if there is syntax issues.) Scenario 1: select * from table1 as t1 where t1.field1=90 and t1.field2='something' and Exists(select top 1 * from containstable(table1,*, 'something') as t2 where t2.[key]=t1.id) results: 10 second (very slow) Scenario 2: select * from table1 as t1 join containstable(table1,*, 'something') as t2 on t2.[key] = t1.id where t1.field1=90 and t1.field2='something' results: 10 second (very slow) Scenario 3: Declare @tbl Table(id uniqueidentifier primary key) insert into @tbl select {key] from containstable(table1,*, 'something') select * from table1 as t1 where t1.field1=90 and t1.field2='something' and Exists(select id from @tbl as tbl where id=req1.id) results: fraction of a second (super fast) Bottom line, it seems if I use Containstable in any kind of join or where clause condition of a select statement that also has other conditions, the performance is really bad. In addition if you look at profiler, the number of reads from the database goes to the roof. But if I first do the full text search and put results in a table variable and use that variable everything goes super fast. The number of reads are also much lower. It seems in "bad" scenarios, somehow it gets stuck in a loop which causes it to read many times from teh database but of course I don't understant why. Now the question is first of all whyis that happening? and question two is that how scalable table variables are? what if it results to 10s of thousands of records? is it still going to be fast. Any ideas? Thanks

    Read the article

  • FullText Search using multiple tables in SQL

    - by Caesar
    Hi there. I have 3 tables, tblBook(BookID, ISBN, Title, Summary) tblAuthor(AuthorID, FullName) tblBookAuthor(BookAuthorID, BookID, AuthorID) tblBookAuthor allows for a single book to have multiple authors and an author may have written any number of books. I am using full text search to search for ranking base on a word: SET @Word = 'FORMSOF(INFLECTIONAL, "' + @Word + '")' SELECT COALESCE(ISBNResults.[KEY], TitleResults.[KEY], SummaryResults.[KEY]) AS [KEY], ISNULL(ISBNResults.Rank, 0) * 3 + ISNULL(TitleResults.Rank, 0) * 2 + ISNULL(SummaryResults.Rank, 0) AS Rank FROM CONTAINSTABLE(tblBook, ISBN, @Word, LANGUAGE 'English') AS ISBNResults FULL OUTER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(tblBook, Title, @Word, LANGUAGE 'English') AS TitleResults ON ISBNResults.[KEY] = TitleResults.[KEY] FULL OUTER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(tblBook, Summary, @Word, LANGUAGE 'English') AS SummaryResults ON ISBNResults.[KEY] = SummaryResults.[KEY] The above code works fine for just searching tblBook table. But now I would like to search also the table tblAuthor based on key word searched. Can you help me with this?

    Read the article

  • How can I remove an "ALMOST" Duplicate using LINQ? ( OR SQL? )

    - by Atomiton
    This should be and easy one for the LINQ gurus out there. I'm doing a complex Query using UNIONS and CONTAINSTABLE in my database to return ranked results to my application. I'm getting duplicates in my returned data. This is expected. I'm using CONTAINSTABLE and CONTAINS to get all the results I need. CONTAINSTABLE is ranked by SQL and CONTAINS (which is run only on the Keywords field ) is hard-code-ranked by me. ( Sorry if that doesn't make sense ) Anyway, because the tuples aren't identical ( their rank is different ) a duplicate is returned. I figure the best way to deal with this is use LINQ. I know I'll be using the Distinct() extension method, but do I have to implement the IEqualityComparer interface? I'm a little fuzzy on how to do this. For argument's sake, say my resultset is structured like this class: class Content { ContentID int //KEY Rank int Description String } If I have a List<Content> how would I write the Distinct() method to exclude Rank? Ideally I'd like to keep the Content's highest Rank. SO, if one Content's RAnk is 112 and the other is 76. I'd like to keep the 112 rank. Hopefully I've given enough information.

    Read the article

  • How to Transform a user's search string into a MS SQL Full-Text Search Phrase

    - by Atomiton
    I've search for answers for this and I can't seem to find an answer to what should be somewhat simple. This is related to another question I asked, but it's different. What's the best way to take a user's search phrase and throw it into a CONTAINSTABLE(table, column, @phrase, topN ) phrase? Say, for example the user inputs: Books by "Dr. Seuss" What's the best way to turn that into something that will return results in my ContainsTAble() phrase? I was previously parsing the search phrase and writing something like ISABOUT("Books" WEIGHT(1.0), "by" WEIGHT(0.9), "Dr. Seuss" WEIGHT(0.8)) as my @phrase but ISABOUT seems to be returning odd results... especially when one word searches are entered. Any Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Convert a user's search string into a MS SQL `Full-Text Query` Search Phrase

    - by Atomiton
    I've search for answers for this and I can't seem to find an answer to what should be somewhat simple. This is related to another question I asked, but it's different. What's the best way to take a user's search phrase and throw it into a CONTAINSTABLE(table, column, @phrase, topN ) phrase? Say, for example the user inputs: Books by "Dr. Seuss" What's the best way to turn that into something that will return results in my ContainsTAble() phrase? I was previously parsing the search phrase and writing something like ISABOUT("Books" WEIGHT(1.0), "by" WEIGHT(0.9), "Dr. Seuss" WEIGHT(0.8)) as my @phrase but ISABOUT seems to be returning odd results... especially when one word searches are entered. Any Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Table/column names enclosed in square brackets, even though their names consist of legal characters

    - by AspOnMyNet
    Square brackets allow you to use names for columns or aliases that contain characters not permitted for column names or aliases. a) I’ve noticed that lots of times table and column names are enclosed inside square brackets, even though their names consist of perfectly legal characters. Why is that? b) As far as I know, square brackets enclosing object’s name aren’t actually a part of that name. Thus, if we create a table named [A]: CREATE TABLE [A] ( … ) we can later reference it without using brackets: SELECT * FROM A But why isn’t the same true when I try to reference a column KEY from a table returned by CONTAINSTABLE function? Namely, if I omit the brackets enclosing column name, I get an error: SELECT ct.KEY FROM CONTAINSTABLE(fullText,*,'some_string') as ct thanx

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 - Full Text Query

    - by user208662
    Hello, I have two tables in a SQL Server 2008 database in my company. The first table represents the products that my company sells. The second table contains the product manufacturer’s details. These tables are defined as follows: Product ------- ID Name ManufacturerID Description Manufacturer ------------ ID Name As you can imagine, I want to make this as easy as possible for our customers to query this data. However, I’m having problems writing a forgiving, yet powerful search query. For instance, I’m anticipating people to search based on phonetical spellings. Because of this, the data may not match the exact data in my database. In addition, I think some individuals will search by manufacturer’s name first, but I want the matching product names to appear first. Based on these requirements, I’m currently working on the following query: select p.Name as 'ProductName', m.Name as 'Manufacturer', r.Rank as 'Rank' from Product p inner join Manufacturer m on p.ManufacturerID=m.ID inner join CONTAINSTABLE(Product, Name, @searchQuery) as r Oddly, this query is throwing an error. However, I have no idea why. Squiggles appear to the right of the last parenthesis in management studio. The tool tip says "An expression of non-boolean type specified in a context where a condition is expected". I understand what this statement means. However, I guess I do not know how COntainsTable works. What am I doing wrong? Thank you

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005. Full Text Search. Need Thesaurus working with NEAR/AND/OR keywords

    - by user305924
    Hi, does anyone know if it's possible to do a thesaurus search together with NEAR or AND/OR keywords. Here is an example of the type of query I want to run: SELECT Title, RANK FROM Item INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(Item, Title, 'FORMSOF(Thesaurus, "red" NEAR "wine")') AS KEY_TBL ON Item.ItemID = KEY_TBL.[KEY] ORDER BY RANK DESC ....But I get the error message: Syntax error near 'NEAR' in the full-text search condition 'FORMSOF(Thesaurus, "red" NEAR "wine")'.

    Read the article

  • Rewrite SQL Fulltext Function to return Table only

    - by Alex
    I have a MS SQL Fulltext Function like this: (...) RETURNS TABLE AS RETURN SELECT * FROM fishes INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(fishes, *, @keywords, @limit) AS KEY_TBL ON fishes.id = KEY_TBL.[KEY] When I use this function in LINQ, it generates a special return type which includes all fields of my "fishes" table, plus Key and Rank. How could I rewrite above query, or change something in LINQ, to omit Key and Rank and just return my "fishes" results (and to have the fulltext search result objects be of type Fish, which is what I really care about, so I don't have to cast)?

    Read the article

  • SQL datasource for gridview

    - by Karsten
    Hi I want to use a gridview with sorting and paging to display data from an SQL server, the query uses 3 joins and the full text search containstable. The from part of the query uses all 3 tables in the join. What is the best way to do this? I can think of a stored procedure, SQL directly in the SQLDataSource and creating a view in the database. I want good performance and would like to leverage the automatic sorting and paging features of the gridview as much as possible.

    Read the article

  • What should the SQL keyword "ISABOUT" [deprecated?] be replaced with?

    - by Atomiton
    In MS SQL Full-text search, I'm using ISABOUT in my queries. For example, this should return the top 10 ProductIDs (PK) with a RANK Field in the ProductDetails Table SELECT * FROM CONTAINSTABLE( ProductDetails, *, ISABOUT("Nikon" WEIGHT (1.0), "Cameras" Weight(0.9)), 10 ) However, according to the SQL Documentation ISABOUT is deprecated. So, I have two questions: What is ISABOUT being replaced with? DO I even NEED any extra SQL Command there? ( IOW, would just putting the search phrase 'Nikon Cameras' be better? ) What I was originally trying to accomplish here was to weight the first word the highest, then the second word lower, and keep descending to 0.5 where I would just rank the remaining words at 0.5. My logic ( and perhaps it's flawed ) was that people's most relevant search words usually happen near the beginning of a phrase ( in English ). Am I going about this the wrong way? Is there a better way? Am I asking too many questions? (^_^) Thanks all for your time...

    Read the article

  • Chain LINQ IQueryable, and end with Stored Procedure

    - by Alex
    I'm chaining search criteria in my application through IQueryable extension methods, e.g.: public static IQueryable<Fish> AtAge (this IQueryable<Fish> fish, Int32 age) { return fish.Where(f => f.Age == age); } However, I also have a full text search stored procedure: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[Fishes_FullTextSearch] @searchtext nvarchar(4000), @limitcount int AS SELECT Fishes.* FROM Fishes INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(Fishes, *, @searchtext, @limitcount) AS KEY_TBL ON Fishes.Id = KEY_TBL.[KEY] ORDER BY KEY_TBL.[Rank] The stored procedure obviously doesn't return IQueryable, however, is it possible to somehow limit the result set for the stored procedure using IQueryable's? I'm envisioning something like .AtAge(5).AboveWeight(100).Fishes_FulltextSearch("abc"). In this case, the fulltext search should execute on a smaller subset of my Fishes table (narrowed by Age and Weight). Is something like this possible? Sample code?

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >