Search Results

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

Page 8/45 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Using SQL Execution Plans to discover the Swedish alphabet

    - by Rob Farley
    SQL Server is quite remarkable in a bunch of ways. In this post, I’m using the way that the Query Optimizer handles LIKE to keep it SARGable, the Execution Plans that result, Collations, and PowerShell to come up with the Swedish alphabet. SARGability is the ability to seek for items in an index according to a particular set of criteria. If you don’t have SARGability in play, you need to scan the whole index (or table if you don’t have an index). For example, I can find myself in the phonebook easily, because it’s sorted by LastName and I can find Farley in there by moving to the Fs, and so on. I can’t find everyone in my suburb easily, because the phonebook isn’t sorted that way. I can’t even find people who have six letters in their last name, because also the book is sorted by LastName, it’s not sorted by LEN(LastName). This is all stuff I’ve looked at before, including in the talk I gave at SQLBits in October 2010. If I try to find everyone who’s names start with F, I can do that using a query a bit like: SELECT LastName FROM dbo.PhoneBook WHERE LEFT(LastName,1) = 'F'; Unfortunately, the Query Optimizer doesn’t realise that all the entries that satisfy LEFT(LastName,1) = 'F' will be together, and it has to scan the whole table to find them. But if I write: SELECT LastName FROM dbo.PhoneBook WHERE LastName LIKE 'F%'; then SQL is smart enough to understand this, and performs an Index Seek instead. To see why, I look further into the plan, in particular, the properties of the Index Seek operator. The ToolTip shows me what I’m after: You’ll see that it does a Seek to find any entries that are at least F, but not yet G. There’s an extra Predicate in there (a Residual Predicate if you like), which checks that each LastName is really LIKE F% – I suppose it doesn’t consider that the Seek Predicate is quite enough – but most of the benefit is seen by its working out the Seek Predicate, filtering to just the “at least F but not yet G” section of the data. This got me curious though, particularly about where the G comes from, and whether I could leverage it to create the Swedish alphabet. I know that in the Swedish language, there are three extra letters that appear at the end of the alphabet. One of them is ä that appears in the word Västerås. It turns out that Västerås is quite hard to find in an index when you’re looking it up in a Swedish map. I talked about this briefly in my five-minute talk on Collation from SQLPASS (the one which was slightly less than serious). So by looking at the plan, I can work out what the next letter is in the alphabet of the collation used by the column. In other words, if my alphabet were Swedish, I’d be able to tell what the next letter after F is – just in case it’s not G. It turns out it is… Yes, the Swedish letter after F is G. But I worked this out by using a copy of my PhoneBook table that used the Finnish_Swedish_CI_AI collation. I couldn’t find how the Query Optimizer calculates the G, and my friend Paul White (@SQL_Kiwi) tells me that it’s frustratingly internal to the QO. He’s particularly smart, even if he is from New Zealand. To investigate further, I decided to do some PowerShell, leveraging the Get-SqlPlan function that I blogged about recently (make sure you also have the SqlServerCmdletSnapin100 snap-in added). I started by indicating that I was going to use Finnish_Swedish_CI_AI as my collation of choice, and that I’d start whichever letter cam straight after the number 9. I figure that this is a cheat’s way of guessing the first letter of the alphabet (but it doesn’t actually work in Unicode – luckily I’m using varchar not nvarchar. Actually, there are a few aspects of this code that only work using ASCII, so apologies if you were wanting to apply it to Greek, Japanese, etc). I also initialised my $alphabet variable. $collation = 'Finnish_Swedish_CI_AI'; $firstletter = '9'; $alphabet = ''; Now I created the table for my test. A single field would do, and putting a Clustered Index on it would suffice for the Seeks. Invoke-Sqlcmd -server . -data tempdb -query "create table dbo.collation_test (col varchar(10) collate $collation primary key);" Now I get into the looping. $c = $firstletter; $stillgoing = $true; while ($stillgoing) { I construct the query I want, seeking for entries which start with whatever $c has reached, and get the plan for it: $query = "select col from dbo.collation_test where col like '$($c)%';"; [xml] $pl = get-sqlplan $query "." "tempdb"; At this point, my $pl variable is a scary piece of XML, representing the execution plan. A bit of hunting through it showed me that the EndRange element contained what I was after, and that if it contained NULL, then I was done. $stillgoing = ($pl.ShowPlanXML.BatchSequence.Batch.Statements.StmtSimple.QueryPlan.RelOp.IndexScan.SeekPredicates.SeekPredicateNew.SeekKeys.EndRange -ne $null); Now I could grab the value out of it (which came with apostrophes that needed stripping), and append that to my $alphabet variable.   if ($stillgoing)   {  $c=$pl.ShowPlanXML.BatchSequence.Batch.Statements.StmtSimple.QueryPlan.RelOp.IndexScan.SeekPredicates.SeekPredicateNew.SeekKeys.EndRange.RangeExpressions.ScalarOperator.ScalarString.Replace("'","");     $alphabet += $c;   } Finally, finishing the loop, dropping the table, and showing my alphabet! } Invoke-Sqlcmd -server . -data tempdb -query "drop table dbo.collation_test;"; $alphabet; When I run all this, I see that the Swedish alphabet is ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZÅÄÖ, which matches what I see at Wikipedia. Interesting to see that the letters on the end are still there, even with Case Insensitivity. Turns out they’re not just “letters with accents”, they’re letters in their own right. I’m sure you gave up reading long ago, and really aren’t that fazed about the idea of doing this using PowerShell. I chose PowerShell because I’d already come up with an easy way of grabbing the estimated plan for a query, and PowerShell does allow for easy navigation of XML. I find the most interesting aspect of this as the fact that the Query Optimizer uses the next letter of the alphabet to maintain the SARGability of LIKE. I’m hoping they do something similar for a whole bunch of operations. Oh, and the fact that you know how to find stuff in the IKEA catalogue. Footnote: If you are interested in whether this works in other languages, you might want to consider the following screenshot, which shows that in principle, it should work with Japanese. It might be a bit harder to run this in PowerShell though, as I’m not sure how it translates. In Hiragana, the Japanese alphabet starts ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ...

    Read the article

  • Remove urls to unidex blog content from google, then copy blogs content to new blog [closed]

    - by sam
    Possible Duplicate: migrating PR / rankings from one site to another Ive been writing a blog for the past yr or so, with about 300 published articles, the blog have been running under a subdomain blog.mysite.com We are no looking to change the url of our site, so the blog is going to have to be ported over to a subdoamin on the new site. We would really like to keep the backlog / archive of all the articles we have written but dont wont to be penalized for having duplicate content, could we just remove / unindex the urls from google in webmaster tools then export the blog and import it back to our new blog ? Would google still see this a duplicate content or becuase ive removed the urls have they no longer got a copy of it ? thanks

    Read the article

  • Google Webmaster Tools reports fake 404 errors

    - by Edgar Quintero
    I have a website where Google Webmaster Tools reports 15,000 links as 404 errors. However, all links return a 200 when I visit them. The problem is, that eventhough I can visit these pages and return a 200, all those 15,000 pages won't index in Google. They aren't appearing in search results. These are constant errors Google Webmaster Tools keeps reporting and I'm not sure what the problem is. We've thought of a DNS issue, but it shouldn't be a DNS issue, because if it were, no page would be indexed (I have 10,000 perfectly indexed). Regarding URL parameters, my pages do not share a similarity in URL parameters that can make it obvious to me what could be causing the error.

    Read the article

  • Joins in single-table queries

    - by Rob Farley
    Tables are only metadata. They don’t store data. I’ve written something about this before, but I want to take a viewpoint of this idea around the topic of joins, especially since it’s the topic for T-SQL Tuesday this month. Hosted this time by Sebastian Meine (@sqlity), who has a whole series on joins this month. Good for him – it’s a great topic. In that last post I discussed the fact that we write queries against tables, but that the engine turns it into a plan against indexes. My point wasn’t simply that a table is actually just a Clustered Index (or heap, which I consider just a special type of index), but that data access always happens against indexes – never tables – and we should be thinking about the indexes (specifically the non-clustered ones) when we write our queries. I described the scenario of looking up phone numbers, and how it never really occurs to us that there is a master list of phone numbers, because we think in terms of the useful non-clustered indexes that the phone companies provide us, but anyway – that’s not the point of this post. So a table is metadata. It stores information about the names of columns and their data types. Nullability, default values, constraints, triggers – these are all things that define the table, but the data isn’t stored in the table. The data that a table describes is stored in a heap or clustered index, but it goes further than this. All the useful data is going to live in non-clustered indexes. Remember this. It’s important. Stop thinking about tables, and start thinking about indexes. So let’s think about tables as indexes. This applies even in a world created by someone else, who doesn’t have the best indexes in mind for you. I’m sure you don’t need me to explain Covering Index bit – the fact that if you don’t have sufficient columns “included” in your index, your query plan will either have to do a Lookup, or else it’ll give up using your index and use one that does have everything it needs (even if that means scanning it). If you haven’t seen that before, drop me a line and I’ll run through it with you. Or go and read a post I did a long while ago about the maths involved in that decision. So – what I’m going to tell you is that a Lookup is a join. When I run SELECT CustomerID FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader WHERE SalesPersonID = 285; against the AdventureWorks2012 get the following plan: I’m sure you can see the join. Don’t look in the query, it’s not there. But you should be able to see the join in the plan. It’s an Inner Join, implemented by a Nested Loop. It’s pulling data in from the Index Seek, and joining that to the results of a Key Lookup. It clearly is – the QO wouldn’t call it that if it wasn’t really one. It behaves exactly like any other Nested Loop (Inner Join) operator, pulling rows from one side and putting a request in from the other. You wouldn’t have a problem accepting it as a join if the query were slightly different, such as SELECT sod.OrderQty FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader AS soh JOIN Sales.SalesOrderDetail as sod on sod.SalesOrderID = soh.SalesOrderID WHERE soh.SalesPersonID = 285; Amazingly similar, of course. This one is an explicit join, the first example was just as much a join, even thought you didn’t actually ask for one. You need to consider this when you’re thinking about your queries. But it gets more interesting. Consider this query: SELECT SalesOrderID FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader WHERE SalesPersonID = 276 AND CustomerID = 29522; It doesn’t look like there’s a join here either, but look at the plan. That’s not some Lookup in action – that’s a proper Merge Join. The Query Optimizer has worked out that it can get the data it needs by looking in two separate indexes and then doing a Merge Join on the data that it gets. Both indexes used are ordered by the column that’s indexed (one on SalesPersonID, one on CustomerID), and then by the CIX key SalesOrderID. Just like when you seek in the phone book to Farley, the Farleys you have are ordered by FirstName, these seek operations return the data ordered by the next field. This order is SalesOrderID, even though you didn’t explicitly put that column in the index definition. The result is two datasets that are ordered by SalesOrderID, making them very mergeable. Another example is the simple query SELECT CustomerID FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader WHERE SalesPersonID = 276; This one prefers a Hash Match to a standard lookup even! This isn’t just ordinary index intersection, this is something else again! Just like before, we could imagine it better with two whole tables, but we shouldn’t try to distinguish between joining two tables and joining two indexes. The Query Optimizer can see (using basic maths) that it’s worth doing these particular operations using these two less-than-ideal indexes (because of course, the best indexese would be on both columns – a composite such as (SalesPersonID, CustomerID – and it would have the SalesOrderID column as part of it as the CIX key still). You need to think like this too. Not in terms of excusing single-column indexes like the ones in AdventureWorks2012, but in terms of having a picture about how you’d like your queries to run. If you start to think about what data you need, where it’s coming from, and how it’s going to be used, then you will almost certainly write better queries. …and yes, this would include when you’re dealing with regular joins across multiples, not just against joins within single table queries.

    Read the article

  • De-index URL parameters by value

    - by Doug Firr
    Upon reading over this question is lengthy so allow me to provide a one sentence summary: I need to get Google to de-index URLs that have parameters with certain values appended I have a website example.com with language translations. There used to be many translations but I deleted them all so that only English (Default) and French options remain. When one selects a language option a parameter is aded to the URL. For example, the home page: https://example.com (default) https://example.com/main?l=fr_FR (French) I added a robots.txt to stop Google from crawling any of the language translations: # robots.txt generated at http://www.mcanerin.com User-agent: * Disallow: Disallow: /cgi-bin/ Disallow: /*?l= So any pages containing "?l=" should not be crawled. I checked in GWT using the robots testing tool. It works. But under html improvements the previously crawled language translation URLs remain indexed. The internet says to add a 404 to the header of the removed URLs so the Googles knows to de-index it. I checked to see what my CMS would throw up if I visited one of the URLs that should no longer exist. This URL was listed in GWT under duplicate title tags (One of the reasons I want to scrub up my URLS) https://example.com/reports/view/884?l=vi_VN&l=hy_AM This URL should not exist - I removed the language translations. The page loads when it should not! I played around. I typed example.com?whatever123 It seems that parameters always load as long as everything before the question mark is a real URL. So if Google has indexed all these URLS with parameters how do I remove them? I cannot check if a 404 is being generated because the page always loads because it's a parameter that needs to be de-indexed.

    Read the article

  • How can I get my dynamic site search results content indexed by Google?

    - by Kris
    I have a site that is simply a search box to search a cloud-hosted database of .tiff images, and then all of my content can only be accessed by entering a search term. So for example, you're on the home page www.example.com and you type in "search" to the box and hit submit. Then it takes you to www.example.com/?q=search, which is a page of all my .tiff images with "search" in the description. How can I get a page like www.example.com/?q=search indexed, WITHOUT making a humungous list of search terms that people might type in?? I know about mod_rewrite, but it seems like for that you need to know ahead of time which URLs you'll need to convert, which I don't. All of these pages will be dynamically user-generated by typing into the search field. Please help!

    Read the article

  • How to suppress PHPSESSID in URL for Googlebot?

    - by Roque Santa Cruz
    I use cookie based sessions, and they work for normal interaction with our site. However, when Googlebot comes crawling out PHP framework, Yii, needs to append ?PHPSESSID to each URL, which doesn't look that good in SERP. Any ways to suppress this behavior? PS. I tried to utilize ini_set('session.use_only_cookies', '1');, but it does not work. PPS. To get an impression of the SERP, they look like this: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:wwwdup.uni-leipzig.de+inurl:jobportal

    Read the article

  • Does Google submit HTML forms?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I have a web page, say http://domain/purchase and in this page, I have a web form. User, on submitting this form (which has validation, both client-side and server side and won't be validated until fields are filled appropriately), would be redirected to another page, where (s)he can choose other things, and specify other settings and then purchase our product. Say the second page is http://domain/options. So, user comes to our site and visits http://domain/purchase, fills the form, submits it, and then would be redirected to the second page, http://doamin/options?parameter1=value1&parameter2=value2, which contains parameters from the first page. This is very common in passing parameters between web pages (or technically, between URLs). Now I was reviewing my website, and saw that Google had indexed some of my redirected web pages and URLs, like: http://domain/options?parameter1=value1&parameter2=value2 http://domain/options?parameter1=value3&parameter2=value4 http://domain/options?parameter1=value5&parameter2=value6 http://domain/options?parameter1=value7&parameter2=value8 http://domain/options?parameter1=value9&parameter2=value10 This means that Google Bot has visited our http://domain/purchase page, and has filled our form, and has submitted it, and was being redirected to the other URL, with corresponding parameters. This is the only way that makes sense to me. Does Google really fills forms? PS: All parameters are meaningful, meaning that they are not filled arbitrarily. For example, the phone parameter in indexed pages has correct phone numbers. How is it possible?

    Read the article

  • The SSIS tuning tip that everyone misses

    - by Rob Farley
    I know that everyone misses this, because I’m yet to find someone who doesn’t have a bit of an epiphany when I describe this. When tuning Data Flows in SQL Server Integration Services, people see the Data Flow as moving from the Source to the Destination, passing through a number of transformations. What people don’t consider is the Source, getting the data out of a database. Remember, the source of data for your Data Flow is not your Source Component. It’s wherever the data is, within your database, probably on a disk somewhere. You need to tune your query to optimise it for SSIS, and this is what most people fail to do. I’m not suggesting that people don’t tune their queries – there’s plenty of information out there about making sure that your queries run as fast as possible. But for SSIS, it’s not about how fast your query runs. Let me say that again, but in bolder text: The speed of an SSIS Source is not about how fast your query runs. If your query is used in a Source component for SSIS, the thing that matters is how fast it starts returning data. In particular, those first 10,000 rows to populate that first buffer, ready to pass down the rest of the transformations on its way to the Destination. Let’s look at a very simple query as an example, using the AdventureWorks database: We’re picking the different Weight values out of the Product table, and it’s doing this by scanning the table and doing a Sort. It’s a Distinct Sort, which means that the duplicates are discarded. It'll be no surprise to see that the data produced is sorted. Obvious, I know, but I'm making a comparison to what I'll do later. Before I explain the problem here, let me jump back into the SSIS world... If you’ve investigated how to tune an SSIS flow, then you’ll know that some SSIS Data Flow Transformations are known to be Blocking, some are Partially Blocking, and some are simply Row transformations. Take the SSIS Sort transformation, for example. I’m using a larger data set for this, because my small list of Weights won’t demonstrate it well enough. Seven buffers of data came out of the source, but none of them could be pushed past the Sort operator, just in case the last buffer contained the data that would be sorted into the first buffer. This is a blocking operation. Back in the land of T-SQL, we consider our Distinct Sort operator. It’s also blocking. It won’t let data through until it’s seen all of it. If you weren’t okay with blocking operations in SSIS, why would you be happy with them in an execution plan? The source of your data is not your OLE DB Source. Remember this. The source of your data is the NCIX/CIX/Heap from which it’s being pulled. Picture it like this... the data flowing from the Clustered Index, through the Distinct Sort operator, into the SELECT operator, where a series of SSIS Buffers are populated, flowing (as they get full) down through the SSIS transformations. Alright, I know that I’m taking some liberties here, because the two queries aren’t the same, but consider the visual. The data is flowing from your disk and through your execution plan before it reaches SSIS, so you could easily find that a blocking operation in your plan is just as painful as a blocking operation in your SSIS Data Flow. Luckily, T-SQL gives us a brilliant query hint to help avoid this. OPTION (FAST 10000) This hint means that it will choose a query which will optimise for the first 10,000 rows – the default SSIS buffer size. And the effect can be quite significant. First let’s consider a simple example, then we’ll look at a larger one. Consider our weights. We don’t have 10,000, so I’m going to use OPTION (FAST 1) instead. You’ll notice that the query is more expensive, using a Flow Distinct operator instead of the Distinct Sort. This operator is consuming 84% of the query, instead of the 59% we saw from the Distinct Sort. But the first row could be returned quicker – a Flow Distinct operator is non-blocking. The data here isn’t sorted, of course. It’s in the same order that it came out of the index, just with duplicates removed. As soon as a Flow Distinct sees a value that it hasn’t come across before, it pushes it out to the operator on its left. It still has to maintain the list of what it’s seen so far, but by handling it one row at a time, it can push rows through quicker. Overall, it’s a lot more work than the Distinct Sort, but if the priority is the first few rows, then perhaps that’s exactly what we want. The Query Optimizer seems to do this by optimising the query as if there were only one row coming through: This 1 row estimation is caused by the Query Optimizer imagining the SELECT operation saying “Give me one row” first, and this message being passed all the way along. The request might not make it all the way back to the source, but in my simple example, it does. I hope this simple example has helped you understand the significance of the blocking operator. Now I’m going to show you an example on a much larger data set. This data was fetching about 780,000 rows, and these are the Estimated Plans. The data needed to be Sorted, to support further SSIS operations that needed that. First, without the hint. ...and now with OPTION (FAST 10000): A very different plan, I’m sure you’ll agree. In case you’re curious, those arrows in the top one are 780,000 rows in size. In the second, they’re estimated to be 10,000, although the Actual figures end up being 780,000. The top one definitely runs faster. It finished several times faster than the second one. With the amount of data being considered, these numbers were in minutes. Look at the second one – it’s doing Nested Loops, across 780,000 rows! That’s not generally recommended at all. That’s “Go and make yourself a coffee” time. In this case, it was about six or seven minutes. The faster one finished in about a minute. But in SSIS-land, things are different. The particular data flow that was consuming this data was significant. It was being pumped into a Script Component to process each row based on previous rows, creating about a dozen different flows. The data flow would take roughly ten minutes to run – ten minutes from when the data first appeared. The query that completes faster – chosen by the Query Optimizer with no hints, based on accurate statistics (rather than pretending the numbers are smaller) – would take a minute to start getting the data into SSIS, at which point the ten-minute flow would start, taking eleven minutes to complete. The query that took longer – chosen by the Query Optimizer pretending it only wanted the first 10,000 rows – would take only ten seconds to fill the first buffer. Despite the fact that it might have taken the database another six or seven minutes to get the data out, SSIS didn’t care. Every time it wanted the next buffer of data, it was already available, and the whole process finished in about ten minutes and ten seconds. When debugging SSIS, you run the package, and sit there waiting to see the Debug information start appearing. You look for the numbers on the data flow, and seeing operators going Yellow and Green. Without the hint, I’d sit there for a minute. With the hint, just ten seconds. You can imagine which one I preferred. By adding this hint, it felt like a magic wand had been waved across the query, to make it run several times faster. It wasn’t the case at all – but it felt like it to SSIS.

    Read the article

  • Meta description of my blog post changes

    - by Aadarsh sojitra
    I have some problems in Meta description tags in my Blogger blog. When I update my pages in search engine with the help of the Fetch as Google feature in GWT, all my blog's results comes with a correct meta description like Today I am back with a reason that "WHY IS ORIGINAL MEMORY IN HARD-DISK IS LESS THAN PRINTED" on a box. If we buy any hard-disk or a pen drive... But after approx 5-6 days, it changes to my blog's default meta description. This is also happening after changing the default meta description of my blog. I want only one answer that why its happening? After deleting my blog and creating a new blog with the same name this problem was solved. Why this problem was solved? - I am asking this question because to solve problems in the future.

    Read the article

  • Traffic fall after a server problem

    - by Sébastien
    I have a website from which I analyse the traffic with Google analytics. Day after day the traffic (mainly from Google SE) incresed until I get a problem with my server. For one day the server has been offline and after that I have no longer had as much users as I had before. Now it's like the site is no more referenced on Google index (but when I type "site:mysite.com", I still have all the results). Do you know if this is a normal behaviour and if the traffic will come back as before (the server has had problems two days ago) ?

    Read the article

  • Unindexing my tumblr blogs content and moving it to another tumblr blog

    - by sam
    ive been writing a tumblr blog for the past yr or so, ive writen about 300 articles, but now i need to move the blog to another site. (before it was running under blog.mysite.com and i now want it to run under blog.my*new*site.com) I want to keep the archived articles and have them on the new site, so what i was hoping to do was export the blog from tumblr, go into webmaster tools remove all the blogs indexed urls from google webmaster, then make a new tumblr blog and import the posts. Would google see this as new content as ive deleted their indexed copy ? Could i just move the mapping of the tumblr blog to the new subdomain, but in doing this i would lose all the pr and it would still look like duplicate content whats the best way to approach this ?

    Read the article

  • Fetch as Googlebot works but Submit to Index does not for AJAX urls

    - by Jennifer
    First I fetch as googlebot, then I am prompted to Submit to Index. This I want to do, but the tool just re-prompts me. This does not happen when I am just submitting a standard url. For those urls I get a confirmation that they were submitted to the index. It only occurs when I am submitting a AJAX url. I know the urls are searchable, as I have performed many tests and see the results using /?_escaped_fragment_= Here is an example url: http://www.townbeam.com/#!events Can someone shed some light on this? Thank you

    Read the article

  • How do I get Google to crawl my content when it's only displayed when you fill in a form?

    - by Sarang Patil
    I have a webpage. It has a form and the "results" section is blank. When the user searches for items, and a list that pops up, he/she chooses one option from list and then the corresponding results are displayed in results section. I once decided to log every ip,url of person with time that visits my page. One ip was 66.249.73.26, and on doing google search I came to know it is ip of google bot. link for whatmyipaddress google bot Now when I searched for the links that this ip visited, it was like this: search?id=100 search?id=110 ... search?id=200 ... then afterwards it incremented in steps of 1, like 400,401.. But people search for strings and not numbers. And because googlebot searches for numbers like this, I think the corresponding content is never displayed and so my page content is never indexed, even though it has rich content. So I want to ask you is that in order to show google bot all the content that the webpage has, should I list all the results in index page and ask users to enter string to filter results?

    Read the article

  • Why won't title attributes get indexed in Google?

    - by Sam
    When I search for Ride On + my site's name, I see that it's indexed. But when I search for Green Horse + my site's name, I don't see my site appearing in the results anywhere! Here's my code: <td><a href="#" title="Green Horse Ride">Ride On</a></td> Does this mean that title attributes are not indexed/shown by Google at all? What is better to use, alt? What are the other alternatives except title and alt?

    Read the article

  • Clustered Index

    - by Derek Dieter
    The clustered index on a table can be defined as: the sort order for how the data for the table is actually stored. Being that the clustered index is the actual data itself, you cannot have two clustered indexes. You can however have many non clustered indexes. These non clustered indexes are [...]

    Read the article

  • Google webmaster Index Status. Total Indexed=0

    - by hammad
    I previously changed my domain from www.visualstudiolearn.blogspot.com to www.visualstudiolearn.com... i had around 300 posts with the previous domain name and most of them where showing up on Google. Now that i have changed my domain name the index status shows total indexed as 0 and when i go to the advanced tab it says 304(not selected) and 217 blocked my robots. Im really depressed because of this situation. could you please help out???

    Read the article

  • Why is <my site url> not indexed by search engines? [closed]

    - by Henrik Erlandsson
    was indexed fine until about a year ago. The only thing I can think of is that search engines throw up at using h5 before h4, or that some person (fantasizing now) has reported my site as unsafe to every search engine. However, I'm not here to speculate. The site validates, and has an RSS feed on the front page, for Pat Morita's sake! To me, it looks like the kind of site search engines would feast on. It's got more than a dozen blogs on it, if nothing else. Hah. :) I was thinking you could identify basically what has changed in search engines (currently, google, yahoo, bing which used to work fine) the last year to make them not find news and blog articles on this site. The site was submitted to Google, oh, way back in 2006. With online crawler tests I get mixed results, some crawlers index fine, some go blank. I don't really know which ones are reliable and am looking to you guys for advice on that. Yes, I am prepared to again verify my site with Google and upload a sitemap, but that's not the topic here. I really would first like to know what change on the site last year could make search engines not index it. (Yees, the robots.txt is fine. Should be nothing to discourage bots there.) It's a very intriguing problem. One which I have yet to find the reason for but would like to know the reason for. Any and all input appreciated, but I would heavily enjoy pertinent advice the most. ;) Edit: Some google searches that don't show up include - aca630 All of which are posted in the news and blogs that are on the front page there. Now, these search terms are extremely specific as the term in is almost unique on the web and ACA630 is also a very qualified search term that can't be confused with mainstream search terms.

    Read the article

  • What is 'lack of original content'?

    - by JVerstry
    It is written everywhere that lack of original content is has a negative impact on ranking. But what is lack of original content? (I am not talking about duplicate content) I guess if you copy other site's content, this makes sense. But, assuming one develops its own functionalities, but similar functionalities are already available on other sites, is this considered lack of original content? Can Google decide to not index such pages (i.e., not give them a chance at all)? Are there other definition of 'lack of original content'?

    Read the article

  • Page appears indexed in Google but not findable for any search terms?

    - by Jeff Atwood
    (Note that I am going to use screenshots here because I suspect writing about this will change the behavior over time.) If you do a Google search for uiviewcontroller best practices either with or without the quotes, you end up with results like this: Note that none of these pages resolve to the actual Stack Overflow question containing those words in the title. They resolve to either a) sites that are mirroring our creative commons data and correctly pointing back to the source question without nofollow, as properly specified by our attribution requirements or b) our own internal links to the question, but not the actual question itself. The actual page with the title ... Custom UIView and UIViewController best practices? ... does exist at this URL ... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3300183/custom-uiview-and-uiviewcontroller-best-practices ... and apparently it is present in Google's index! But why does it not appear when we search for uiviewcontroller best practices ? We know that Google contains this page in its index Our search terms match the title of the question Stack Overflow has much higher pagerank than the other sites that are mirroring this question under Creative Commons I don't get it. What are we doing wrong here?

    Read the article

  • How to prevent the google users found my index of admin page?

    - by krish
    I am running a website but for some days i stopped it and put the under-construction page because the Index of admin page is visible to the outside world through the Google search. One of my friend told me that your websites index is visible and its one step away to access the password file and he shows me that very simply using the Google search. How can i prevent this and i am hosting my site with a hosting company and i report about this to them but they simply replied to me still its secure so you no need to worry... am i really don need to worry and continue my site with the visible index of admin page?

    Read the article

  • How do I remove a LOT of indexed pages from Google?

    - by Thierry
    A few weeks ago we have figured out that Google has indexed some information we would rather keep in some confidentiality, in the format of individual PDF files. Our assumption was that this was a problem with our robots.txt we had overlooked. Even though we are not sure whether or not this is the case, we are certain that the robots.txt file is in a valid format and is, according to Google's webmaster tools, blocking the files. However, even after this adjustment that has been made weeks ago, Google still has the PDF files indexed, but does tell us further information cannot be provided due to the robots.txt file being present. As you can hopefully understand, this is unwanted behaviour due to the nature of the documents. I am aware that there is a request page being provided by Google for this purpose, but there are a lot of files. Is there an easier way to get Google to remove all of the files from its search engine? If not, is there anything else you could advise us to do besides manually requesting Google to remove every single page? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why don't TITLE tags get indexed in google?

    - by Sam
    Hi folks, a question: When I seach "Ride On" + my sites name, I see its indexed But when I search for "Green Horse" + my site's name, I dont see my site appearing in the results anywhere! <td><a href="#" title="Green Horse Ride">Ride On</a></td> Question1 Does this mean that title="" attributes are not indexed/shown by google at all? Question2 What is better to use ? Alt? what are my other alternatives except title and alt?

    Read the article

  • Slides and demo code for Columnstore Index session

    - by Hugo Kornelis
    Almost a week has passed after SQLBits X in London , so I guess it’s about time for me to share the slides and demo code of my session on columnstore indexes. After all, I promised people I would do that – especially when I found out that I had enough demos prepared to fill two sessions! I made some changes to the demo code. I added extra comments, not only to the demos I could not explain and run during the session, but also to the rest, so that people who missed the session will also be able to...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Will search engines reindex a page that has been set to redirect on to a newer site page?

    - by Luke Duddridge
    We were asked by a client to change a website so that any pages/Urls we were hosting on an older site would now redirect to a newer site hosted somewhere else and a different domain name to boot. We did this by changing each page in the IIS site management, to redirect to a url on their new domain instead of rendering a page locally. According to the redirect tool here: http://www.webconfs.com/redirect-check.php . What we have done is search engine friendly. Problem now is... the client has been on a course learning all about meta tags and so thinks they have a better understanding of the "matrix" (remember there is no spoon). As Google still has the older site appearing in a search, this isnt helping matters. I have tried to explain, we have to wait for Google to reindex. I'm not blowing smoke am I? I'm now starting to wonder... will the older site always appear in a search, even though the pages don't exist? Is there a better way I should be redirecting their site to ensure google will stop keeping an index of pages that no longer exist and would instead replace them with the content in the newer site? a suggestion on the site mentioned above is to use the code: Response.Status="301 Moved Permanently" Response.AddHeader "Location","http://www.new-url.com/" Does using the option in the IIS management tool to redirect the url not do the same?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >