Search Results

Search found 1124 results on 45 pages for 'indexing'.

Page 2/45 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to prevent Google from indexing non-domain URL of website?

    - by Gavin
    My webhost gives you two URLs for your website: the URL on your shared server, which is something like usr283725992783.webhost.com and your domain URL, which is www.example.com Google is indexing both of these URLs, but obviously I only want www.example.com to be indexed. I can't add "nofollow" tags to usr283725992783.webhost.com because that URL serves the same files as www.example.com. How can I only make Google not follow usr283725992783.webhost.com and keep following www.example.com?

    Read the article

  • prevent search engines indexing depending on domain

    - by Javier
    We have a dedicated server with a hosting company with a couple of dozens of webs in it. It happens that the nameservers (EG: ns1.domain.com, ns2.domain.com) ip's are coincident with some client webs, let's say webclient1.com and webclient2.com Problem is that for a certain searches in google, some results are showing up like ns1.domain.com/result instead of webclient1.com/result which is pretty wrong and annoying for our clients. Actually if you type in the browser ns1.domain.com or ns2.domain.com it will load some pageclients instead. Is there any way to prevent google to track those results only in case the robots are coming to check ns domains? It may be not correct to ask this as well, but why is it happening? is it a result of a bad server configuration? I'm pretty new on these matters, so thank you in advance for any help!

    Read the article

  • What measures can be taken to increase Google indexing speed for a given newly created page?

    - by knorv
    Consider a website with a large number of pages. New pages are published regularly. When publishing a new page the website operator wants to get the newly created paged indexed in Google as soon as possible. The website operator wants to minimize the time spent between publication and indexing. Consider the site http://www.example.com/ with hundreds of thousands of pages. The page page http://www.example.com/something/important-page.html is created at say 12:00. How do I get important-page.html indexed as soon as possible after 12:00? Ideally within seconds or minutes. Or more generally: What options are available to try to get Google to index a specific newly created page as soon as possible?

    Read the article

  • Incomplete results with Turkish characters in Indexing Service

    - by Ishmaeel
    Finally I get to post my i's and I's as promised... I've found that MS Indexing Service returns incomplete results when searching for documents with Turkish content. It seems to choke especially regarding the (incorrectly-named) 4I problem. Apparently, MS has fixed this problem with a Windows 2000 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/325333 service pack, but the bug seems to be resurrected with Windows XP & 2003. Anybody uses Indexing Service in their line of work? Similar problems with other non-English locales? Any solutions?

    Read the article

  • Why is Yahoo Indexing Bot considered as "evil"?

    - by bigstylee
    After reading and commenting on this question PHP Library for Keeping your site index by Google, Bing, etc, I was curious to look at StackOverFlow's sitemap. This returned a 404 error which I am guessing is just a protected page by determining if your are a Index Bot or simply doesnt exists. This then lead me to look at the robots.txt for StackOverFlow. I was surprised to see the comment "Yahoo bot is evil" along with a couple other Indexing bots (Spinn3r and KSCrawler) . I am unfamilular with Spinn3r and KSCrawler but my question is, why are these bots (particular Yahoo) considered as evil? Surely any and all indexing of any Search Engine is a good thing?

    Read the article

  • SQL indexing on varchar

    - by alex
    I have a table whose columns are varchar(50) and a float - I need to (very quickly) look get the float associated with a given string. Even with indexing, this is rather slow. I know, however, that each string is associated with an integer, which I know at the time of lookup, so that each string maps to a unique integer, but each integer does not map to a unique string. One might think of it as a tree structure. Is there anything to be gained by adding this integer to the table, indexing on it, and using a query like SELECT floatval FROM mytable WHERE phrase=givenstring AND assoc=givenint? This is Postgres, and if you couldn't tell, I have very little experience with databases.

    Read the article

  • Mysql InnoDB performance optimization and indexing

    - by Davide C
    Hello everybody, I have 2 databases and I need to link information between two big tables (more than 3M entries each, continuously growing). The 1st database has a table 'pages' that stores various information about web pages, and includes the URL of each one. The column 'URL' is a varchar(512) and has no index. The 2nd database has a table 'urlHops' defined as: CREATE TABLE urlHops ( dest varchar(512) NOT NULL, src varchar(512) DEFAULT NULL, timestamp timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, KEY dest_key (dest), KEY src_key (src) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 Now, I need basically to issue (efficiently) queries like this: select p.id,p.URL from db1.pages p, db2.urlHops u where u.src=p.URL and u.dest=? At first, I thought to add an index on pages(URL). But it's a very long column, and I already issue a lot of INSERTs and UPDATEs on the same table (way more than the number of SELECTs I would do using this index). Other possible solutions I thought are: -adding a column to pages, storing the md5 hash of the URL and indexing it; this way I could do queries using the md5 of the URL, with the advantage of an index on a smaller column. -adding another table that contains only page id and page URL, indexing both columns. But this is maybe a waste of space, having only the advantage of not slowing down the inserts and updates I execute on 'pages'. I don't want to slow down the inserts and updates, but at the same time I would be able to do the queries on the URL efficiently. Any advice? My primary concern is performance; if needed, wasting some disk space is not a problem. Thank you, regards Davide

    Read the article

  • Indexing/Performance strategies for vast amount of the same value

    - by DrColossos
    Base information: This is in context to the indexing process of OpenStreetMap data. To simplify the question: the core information is divided into 3 main types with value "W", "R", "N" (VARCHAR(1)). The table has somewhere around ~75M rows, all columns with "W" make up ~42M rows. Existing indexes are not relevant to this question. Now the question itself: The indexing of the data is done via an procedure. Inside this procedure, there are some loops that do the following: [...] SELECT * FROM table WHERE the_key = "W"; [...] The results get looped again and the above query itself is also in a loop. This takes a lot of time and slows down the process massivly. An indexon the_key is obviously useless since all the values that the index might use are the same ("W"). The script itself is running with a speed that is OK, only the SELECTing takes very long. Do I need to create a "special" kind of index that takes this into account and makes the SELECT quicker? If so, which one? need to tune some of the server parameters (they are already tuned and the result that they deliver seem to be good. If needed, I can post them)? have to live with the speed and simply get more hardware to gain more power (Tim Taylor grunt grunt)? Any alternatives to the above points (except rewriting it or not using it)?

    Read the article

  • Exception when indexing text documents with Lucene, using SnowballAnalyzer for cleaning up

    - by Julia
    Hello!!! I am indexing the documents with Lucene and am trying to apply the SnowballAnalyzer for punctuation and stopword removal from text .. I keep getting the following error :( IllegalAccessError: tried to access method org.apache.lucene.analysis.Tokenizer.(Ljava/io/Reader;)V from class org.apache.lucene.analysis.snowball.SnowballAnalyzer Here is the code, I would very much appreciate help!!!! I am new with this.. public class Indexer { private Indexer(){}; private String[] stopWords = {....}; private String indexName; private IndexWriter iWriter; private static String FILES_TO_INDEX = "/Users/ssi/forindexing"; public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { Indexer m = new Indexer(); m.index("./newindex"); } public void index(String indexName) throws Exception { this.indexName = indexName; final File docDir = new File(FILES_TO_INDEX); if(!docDir.exists() || !docDir.canRead()){ System.err.println("Something wrong... " + docDir.getPath()); System.exit(1); } Date start = new Date(); PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper analyzers = new PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper(new SimpleAnalyzer()); analyzers.addAnalyzer("text", new SnowballAnalyzer("English", stopWords)); Directory directory = FSDirectory.open(new File(this.indexName)); IndexWriter.MaxFieldLength maxLength = IndexWriter.MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED; iWriter = new IndexWriter(directory, analyzers, true, maxLength); System.out.println("Indexing to dir..........." + indexName); if(docDir.isDirectory()){ File[] files = docDir.listFiles(); if(files != null){ for (int i = 0; i < files.length; i++) { try { indexDocument(files[i]); }catch (FileNotFoundException fnfe){ fnfe.printStackTrace(); } } } } System.out.println("Optimizing...... "); iWriter.optimize(); iWriter.close(); Date end = new Date(); System.out.println("Time to index was" + (end.getTime()-start.getTime()) + "miliseconds"); } private void indexDocument(File someDoc) throws IOException { Document doc = new Document(); Field name = new Field("name", someDoc.getName(), Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.ANALYZED); Field text = new Field("text", new FileReader(someDoc), Field.TermVector.WITH_POSITIONS_OFFSETS); doc.add(name); doc.add(text); iWriter.addDocument(doc); } }

    Read the article

  • spatial indexing mysql

    - by shaiju
    i have to integrate spatial indexing in mysql .i got an example i almost done it.in that example INSERT INTO address VALUES('Foobar street 12', GeomFromText('POINT(2671 2500)')); inplace of 2671 and 2500 i have to insert latitude and longitude in below format 35.177 ,-77.11. How is it possibe .Please help me

    Read the article

  • Indexing XMLType columns

    - by Chris
    Hello, I am working with a XMLType and currently experiencing significant performance issues and would like to incorporate indexing to the column type. Currently I am taking the approach of using the XMLTable() and XQuery functions to create a virtual table. I would like to use this Virtual Table to create a function based index on the table containing the XMLType, but I am receiving this error: Error report: SQL Error: ORA-00907: missing right parenthesis 00907. 00000 - "missing right parenthesis" *Cause: *Action: This is the index.. any assistance would be greatly appreciated. CREATE INDEX indx_medicinalproduct ON d.ProductName XMLTable('for $i at $a in /safetyreport/patient//drug for $j in $i/medicinalproduct return element r { $i/medicinalproduct }' PASSING s.safetyreport COLUMNS ProductName varchar2(70) PATH 'medicinalproduct') d;

    Read the article

  • Blogger still visible after moving to WP; Google Indexing issues after moving from Blogger to WP

    - by Erin
    I recently migrated from Blogger to Wordpress and am having two major transition issues that are really hurting. Despite literally hours of searching and experimenting, I cannot resolve the following: ISSUE ONE: I fixed all of my old blogger links to 301 redirect successfully to my WP links (the 2 structures are different and I realized too late), but my old blogger blog is still sometimes visible! (the 2 designs are completely different) I had 31 hits on my blogger site just yesterday. I have updated my privacy settings to hide my blogger blog from search engines and not be visible on blogger. I also removed my custom domain from blogger already as well. HELP! Not sure how to stop this. ISSUE two: Despite submitting a new site map and reindexing my pages for my WP blog, I am not visible in search engines, although I was very visible previously. In fact, some of my OLD links are showing up. Am I being penalized?? Any thoughts on how to fix. THANK YOU! Erin my site: www.thelawstudentswife.com

    Read the article

  • Google is still crawling and indexing my old, dummy, test pages which now are 404 not found

    - by Ace
    I have set up my site with sample pages and data (lorem ipsum, etc..) and Google has crawled these pages. I deleted all these pages and actually added real content but in webmaster tools, i still get a lot of 404 errors Google trying to crawl these pages. I have set them to "mark as resolved" but some pages still come back as 404. Furthermore, I have a lot of these sample pages still listed when i do a search of my site on Google. How to remove them. I think these irrelevant pages are hurting my rating. I actually wanted to erase all these pages and start getting my site being being indexed as a new one but I read it's not possible? (I have submitted a sitemap and used "Fetch as Google.")

    Read the article

  • How to prevent a search engines from indexing a section of a page?

    - by BrunoLM
    I have many pages with lots of text in it. But I will always have two sections of text and I want to prevent one section from appearing in search results, the other section must be indexed. <p class="please-index-me">text</p> <p class="get-out">never index me please</p> I thought that maybe if I load the "please don't index me text" with Javascript maybe search engines wouldn't look for it. But I am not sure it would work and this is not really nice. I was wondering if there is a way to tell search engines "hey, this text you can't grab, move on". So, is there a way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Is Google indexing pages that has no connection with other pages? [duplicate]

    - by Grkmksk
    This question already has an answer here: How did Google find my unlinked newly created pages? 3 answers I am working on a web project that has nearly 100 thousand instant users and there is a webpage that we are using for test cases. There are no links pointing to it from other pages. It shouldn't be indexed by Google or any other search engines. "noindex" can be used in this situation, I know but I wonder if Google (or any others) indexes this page, if I don't do anything to prevent it.

    Read the article

  • Changing the indexing on existing table in SQL Server 2000

    - by Raj
    Guys, Here is the scenario: SQL Server 2000 (8.0.2055) Table currently has 478 million rows of data. The Primary Key column is an INT with IDENTITY. There is an Unique Constraint imposed on two other columns with a Non-Clustered Index. This is a vendor application and we are only responsible for maintaining the DB. Now the vendor has recommended doing the following "to improve performance" Drop the PK and Clustered Index Drop the non-clustered index on the two columns with the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT Recreate the PK, with a NON-CLUSTERED index Create a CLUSTERED index on the two columns with the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT I am not convinced that this is the right thing to do. I have a number of concerns. By dropping the PK and indexes, you will be creating a heap with 478 million rows of data. Then creating a CLUSTERED INDEX on two columns would be a really mammoth task. Would creating another table with the same structure and new indexing scheme and then copying the data over, dropping the old table and renaming the new one be a better approach? I am also not sure how the stored procs will react. Will they continue using the cached execution plan, considering that they are not being explicitly recompiled. I am simply not able to understand what kind of "performance improvement" this change will provide. I think that this will actually have the reverse effect. All thoughts welcome. Thanks in advance, Raj

    Read the article

  • W7-pro indexing mydoc on disk partition does not work

    - by Yvan Thery
    I am working on a HP-7100 mini tower running W7 Pro 64bits. My Local HD includes C:/ + 2 disk partitions : all my documents are located on disk partition L:/ and all my media files are on disk partition M:/ The indexing process works well on C:/ and M:/ but does not index the L:/ any more also all of them are allowed to be indexed, also the system is present on all drive security tabs. I have tested to rebuilt the indexing file with a new setting including few directories present on drive C/M/L but still with L: does not work ! One more thing I can tell you is that even after rebuilding the indexing file, I can find some residual directories or files which are out of the test selection. It is like unerased components remaining in the indexing database. As I do not know precisely how the indexing process works it is hard to know what to do ... Recently I had a bad time after using a past restoration procedure ... maybe it did corrupt the indexing file ???? If I start indexing the all L:/ disk partition the system stop at 39 found index also many more are existing .... Does any one from you guys could advise the process to create a new indexing database ... ? Any idea to get out of this mess ? Many thanks for assistance Yvan

    Read the article

  • Indexing on only part of a field in MongoDB

    - by Rob Hoare
    Is there a way to create an index on only part of a field in MongoDB, for example on the first 10 characters? I couldn't find it documented (or asked about on here). The MySQL equivalent would be CREATE INDEX part_of_name ON customer (name(10));. Reason: I have a collection with a single field that varies in length from a few characters up to over 1000 characters, average 50 characters. As there are a hundred million or so documents it's going to be hard to fit the full index in memory (testing with 8% of the data the index is already 400MB, according to stats). Indexing just the first part of the field would reduce the index size by about 75%. In most cases the search term is quite short, it's not a full-text search. A work-around would be to add a second field of 10 (lowercased) characters for each item, index that, then add logic to filter the results if the search term is over ten characters (and that extra field is probably needed anyway for case-insensitive searches, unless anybody has a better way). Seems like an ugly way to do it though. [added later] I tried adding the second field, containing the first 12 characters from the main field, lowercased. It wasn't a big success. Previously, the average object size was 50 bytes, but I forgot that includes the _id and other overheads, so my main field length (there was only one) averaged nearer to 30 bytes than 50. Then, the second field index contains the _id and other overheads. Net result (for my 8% sample) is the index on the main field is 415MB and on the 12 byte field is 330MB - only a 20% saving in space, not worthwhile. I could duplicate the entire field (to work around the case insensitive search problem) but realistically it looks like I should reconsider whether MongoDB is the right tool for the job (or just buy more memory and use twice as much disk space). [added even later] This is a typical document, with the source field, and the short lowercased field: { "_id" : ObjectId("505d0e89f56588f20f000041"), "q" : "Continental Airlines", "f" : "continental " } Indexes: db.test.ensureIndex({q:1}); db.test.ensureIndex({f:1}); The 'f" index, working on a shorter field, is 80% of the size of the "q" index. I didn't mean to imply I included the _id in the index, just that it needs to use that somewhere to show where the index will point to, so it's an overhead that probably helps explain why a shorter key makes so little difference. Access to the index will be essentially random, no part of it is more likely to be accessed than any other. Total index size for the full file will likely be 5GB, so it's not extreme for that one index. Adding some other fields for other search cases, and their associated indexes, and copies of data for lower case, does start to add up, which I why I started looking into a more concise index.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >