Showing posts with label contents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contents. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

contents of image fields

Hi,

I have a SELECT FROM TABLE query and in that table there is a field of type
image. Result of this select goes throug internet do its destination. But in
fact I need only to know if in this field is or not an image. Is there any
funciotn which gives me information about contents of image fields?

Regards, PaulIs there any funciotn which gives me information about contents of image

Quote:

Originally Posted by

fields?


The only thing SQL Server knows about image column contents is the
DATALENGTH. It is up to the application to interpret the contents. If you
store data of different types in the same column (not a good design, IMHO),
you'll need another column to indicate the type.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"Koral" <koral00@.op.plwrote in message news:f7vir2$nur$1@.news.onet.pl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi,
>
I have a SELECT FROM TABLE query and in that table there is a field of
type image. Result of this select goes throug internet do its destination.
But in fact I need only to know if in this field is or not an image. Is
there any funciotn which gives me information about contents of image
fields?
>
Regards, Paul
>

Contents of FileGroups

All,
Is it possible for a table to exist in more than 1 filegroup? Is it
possible to move all existing instances of that table to just 1
filegroup? . Using the script below:
SELECT DISTINCT (SELECT groupname
FROM sysfilegroups
WHERE groupid = a.groupid)
AS filegroup, OBJECT_NAME(id) AS 'object name'
FROM sysindexes a
WHERE (groupid <> 0)
ORDER BY filegroup, 'object name' ASC
I was about to see which filegroup a table resides in. I know that
where a clustered index exists so to must the table data must follow.
But, while running the above script, I have instances where some tables
exists in two filegroups. Using sp_help, I confirmed that the clustered
index and all other non-clustered indexes reside in FileGroup1. However
running the above script shows that part of the table also resides in
FileGroup2. This only occurs for about 5% of all tables (about 3000).
What would cause such an event? How can one rectify the situation by
merging the table instance on FileGroup2 into FileGroup1 and hopefully
removing this table instance in FileGroup2?
Thanks,
Ian in SDTMK a table can only exist in one filegroup. The filegroup may consist of
multiple files and extents from multiple files may be allocated to the
table. The clustered index actually is the table so creating the clustered
index ON a filegroup will move the table to a different filegroup.
HTH
Jerry
<theredmiata@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147992470.409194.55030@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All,
> Is it possible for a table to exist in more than 1 filegroup? Is it
> possible to move all existing instances of that table to just 1
> filegroup? . Using the script below:
> SELECT DISTINCT (SELECT groupname
> FROM sysfilegroups
> WHERE groupid = a.groupid)
> AS filegroup, OBJECT_NAME(id) AS 'object name'
> FROM sysindexes a
> WHERE (groupid <> 0)
> ORDER BY filegroup, 'object name' ASC
> I was about to see which filegroup a table resides in. I know that
> where a clustered index exists so to must the table data must follow.
> But, while running the above script, I have instances where some tables
> exists in two filegroups. Using sp_help, I confirmed that the clustered
> index and all other non-clustered indexes reside in FileGroup1. However
> running the above script shows that part of the table also resides in
> FileGroup2. This only occurs for about 5% of all tables (about 3000).
> What would cause such an event? How can one rectify the situation by
> merging the table instance on FileGroup2 into FileGroup1 and hopefully
> removing this table instance in FileGroup2?
> Thanks,
> Ian in SD
>|||In SQL 2000 a table can only exist inside of 1 FileGroup, but you can create
non-clustered indexes on other filegroups.
In SQL 2005 you can use a partioning scheme to partition a table or an index
across multiple filegroups.
--
David Lundell
Principal Consultant and Trainer
www.MutuallyBeneficial.com
David@.MutuallyBeneficial.com|||TMK a table can only exist in one filegroup. The filegroup may consist of
multiple files and extents from multiple files may be allocated to the
table. The clustered index actually is the table so creating the clustered
index ON a filegroup will move the table to a different filegroup.
HTH
Jerry
<theredmiata@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147992470.409194.55030@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All,
> Is it possible for a table to exist in more than 1 filegroup? Is it
> possible to move all existing instances of that table to just 1
> filegroup? . Using the script below:
> SELECT DISTINCT (SELECT groupname
> FROM sysfilegroups
> WHERE groupid = a.groupid)
> AS filegroup, OBJECT_NAME(id) AS 'object name'
> FROM sysindexes a
> WHERE (groupid <> 0)
> ORDER BY filegroup, 'object name' ASC
> I was about to see which filegroup a table resides in. I know that
> where a clustered index exists so to must the table data must follow.
> But, while running the above script, I have instances where some tables
> exists in two filegroups. Using sp_help, I confirmed that the clustered
> index and all other non-clustered indexes reside in FileGroup1. However
> running the above script shows that part of the table also resides in
> FileGroup2. This only occurs for about 5% of all tables (about 3000).
> What would cause such an event? How can one rectify the situation by
> merging the table instance on FileGroup2 into FileGroup1 and hopefully
> removing this table instance in FileGroup2?
> Thanks,
> Ian in SD
>|||"Jerry Spivey" <jspivey@.vestas-awt.com> wrote in message
news:OzNZa4seGHA.4304@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> TMK a table can only exist in one filegroup. The filegroup may consist of
> multiple files and extents from multiple files may be allocated to the
> table. The clustered index actually is the table so creating the
> clustered index ON a filegroup will move the table to a different
> filegroup.
>
There are three physical parts to a table, and they can be on seperate file
groups in SQL 2000.
Clustered Index or Page Heap
Non-Clustered Indexes
text, ntext and image data
David

Contents of FileGroups

All,
Is it possible for a table to exist in more than 1 filegroup? Is it
possible to move all existing instances of that table to just 1
filegroup? . Using the script below:
SELECT DISTINCT (SELECT groupname
FROM sysfilegroups
WHERE groupid = a.groupid)
AS filegroup, OBJECT_NAME(id) AS 'object name'
FROM sysindexes a
WHERE (groupid <> 0)
ORDER BY filegroup, 'object name' ASC
I was about to see which filegroup a table resides in. I know that
where a clustered index exists so to must the table data must follow.
But, while running the above script, I have instances where some tables
exists in two filegroups. Using sp_help, I confirmed that the clustered
index and all other non-clustered indexes reside in FileGroup1. However
running the above script shows that part of the table also resides in
FileGroup2. This only occurs for about 5% of all tables (about 3000).
What would cause such an event? How can one rectify the situation by
merging the table instance on FileGroup2 into FileGroup1 and hopefully
removing this table instance in FileGroup2?
Thanks,
Ian in SDTMK a table can only exist in one filegroup. The filegroup may consist of
multiple files and extents from multiple files may be allocated to the
table. The clustered index actually is the table so creating the clustered
index ON a filegroup will move the table to a different filegroup.
HTH
Jerry
<theredmiata@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147992470.409194.55030@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All,
> Is it possible for a table to exist in more than 1 filegroup? Is it
> possible to move all existing instances of that table to just 1
> filegroup? . Using the script below:
> SELECT DISTINCT (SELECT groupname
> FROM sysfilegroups
> WHERE groupid = a.groupid)
> AS filegroup, OBJECT_NAME(id) AS 'object name'
> FROM sysindexes a
> WHERE (groupid <> 0)
> ORDER BY filegroup, 'object name' ASC
> I was about to see which filegroup a table resides in. I know that
> where a clustered index exists so to must the table data must follow.
> But, while running the above script, I have instances where some tables
> exists in two filegroups. Using sp_help, I confirmed that the clustered
> index and all other non-clustered indexes reside in FileGroup1. However
> running the above script shows that part of the table also resides in
> FileGroup2. This only occurs for about 5% of all tables (about 3000).
> What would cause such an event? How can one rectify the situation by
> merging the table instance on FileGroup2 into FileGroup1 and hopefully
> removing this table instance in FileGroup2?
> Thanks,
> Ian in SD
>|||In SQL 2000 a table can only exist inside of 1 FileGroup, but you can create
non-clustered indexes on other filegroups.
In SQL 2005 you can use a partioning scheme to partition a table or an index
across multiple filegroups.
David Lundell
Principal Consultant and Trainer
www.MutuallyBeneficial.com
David@.MutuallyBeneficial.com|||TMK a table can only exist in one filegroup. The filegroup may consist of
multiple files and extents from multiple files may be allocated to the
table. The clustered index actually is the table so creating the clustered
index ON a filegroup will move the table to a different filegroup.
HTH
Jerry
<theredmiata@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147992470.409194.55030@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All,
> Is it possible for a table to exist in more than 1 filegroup? Is it
> possible to move all existing instances of that table to just 1
> filegroup? . Using the script below:
> SELECT DISTINCT (SELECT groupname
> FROM sysfilegroups
> WHERE groupid = a.groupid)
> AS filegroup, OBJECT_NAME(id) AS 'object name'
> FROM sysindexes a
> WHERE (groupid <> 0)
> ORDER BY filegroup, 'object name' ASC
> I was about to see which filegroup a table resides in. I know that
> where a clustered index exists so to must the table data must follow.
> But, while running the above script, I have instances where some tables
> exists in two filegroups. Using sp_help, I confirmed that the clustered
> index and all other non-clustered indexes reside in FileGroup1. However
> running the above script shows that part of the table also resides in
> FileGroup2. This only occurs for about 5% of all tables (about 3000).
> What would cause such an event? How can one rectify the situation by
> merging the table instance on FileGroup2 into FileGroup1 and hopefully
> removing this table instance in FileGroup2?
> Thanks,
> Ian in SD
>|||"Jerry Spivey" <jspivey@.vestas-awt.com> wrote in message
news:OzNZa4seGHA.4304@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> TMK a table can only exist in one filegroup. The filegroup may consist of
> multiple files and extents from multiple files may be allocated to the
> table. The clustered index actually is the table so creating the
> clustered index ON a filegroup will move the table to a different
> filegroup.
>
There are three physical parts to a table, and they can be on seperate file
groups in SQL 2000.
Clustered Index or Page Heap
Non-Clustered Indexes
text, ntext and image data
David

Contents of a SP

Hi all,
How can I select the contents of a SP to a text file
Thanks
RobertRobert Bravery wrote:
> How can I select the contents of a SP to a text file
In SQL Server 2005, you can use the OBJECT_DEFINITION function, like
this:
SELECT OBJECT_DEFINITION(OBJECT_ID('ProcedureNa
me'))
In SQL Server 2000, you can query the syscomments table, like this:
SELECT text FROM syscomments WHERE id=OBJECT_ID('ProcedureName')
but if the procedure text is longer than 4K, it will be split across
multiple rows.
To store the result in a file, either use copy/paste (if it's a
one-time job) or a command-line utility like BCP or OSQL/SQLCMD.
Razvan|||> In SQL Server 2000, you can query the syscomments table, like this:
> SELECT text FROM syscomments WHERE id=OBJECT_ID('ProcedureName')
> but if the procedure text is longer than 4K, it will be split across
> multiple rows.
All the more reason to use sp_helptext instead of selecting from system
tables.|||Another one way in SQL Server 2005 is by using the sys.sql_modules
catalog view
SELECT definition
FROM sys.sql_modules
WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('ProcedureName')
Denis the SQL Menace
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
Razvan Socol wrote:
> Robert Bravery wrote:
> In SQL Server 2005, you can use the OBJECT_DEFINITION function, like
> this:
> SELECT OBJECT_DEFINITION(OBJECT_ID('ProcedureNa
me'))
> In SQL Server 2000, you can query the syscomments table, like this:
> SELECT text FROM syscomments WHERE id=OBJECT_ID('ProcedureName')
> but if the procedure text is longer than 4K, it will be split across
> multiple rows.
> To store the result in a file, either use copy/paste (if it's a
> one-time job) or a command-line utility like BCP or OSQL/SQLCMD.
> Razvan|||And of course there is always INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINES that works EQUALLY
well in SQL 2000 and SQL 2005.
SELECT
ROUTINE_NAME
, ROUTINE_DEFINITION
FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINES
WHERE ROUTINE_NAME = {MySprocName}
--
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1151582710.965580.171600@.d56g2000cw
d.googlegroups.com...
> Robert Bravery wrote:
>
> In SQL Server 2005, you can use the OBJECT_DEFINITION function, like
> this:
> SELECT OBJECT_DEFINITION(OBJECT_ID('ProcedureNa
me'))
>
> In SQL Server 2000, you can query the syscomments table, like this:
> SELECT text FROM syscomments WHERE id=OBJECT_ID('ProcedureName')
> but if the procedure text is longer than 4K, it will be split across
> multiple rows.
>
> To store the result in a file, either use copy/paste (if it's a
> one-time job) or a command-line utility like BCP or OSQL/SQLCMD.
>
> Razvan
>|||But if your proc is longer than 4000 characters then only the first
4000 character will be returned, the rest will be truncated
Denis the SQL Menace
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
Arnie Rowland wrote:
> And of course there is always INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINES that works EQUAL
LY well in SQL 2000 and SQL 2005.
> SELECT
> ROUTINE_NAME
> , ROUTINE_DEFINITION
> FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINES
> WHERE ROUTINE_NAME = {MySprocName}
> --
> Arnie Rowland, YACE*
> "To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
> *Yet Another certification Exam
>
> "Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1151582710.965580.
171600@.d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> --=_NextPart_000_0E97_01C69B57.2E222ED0
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2519
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.5296.0" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And of course there is always
> INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINES that works EQUALLY well in SQL 2000 and SQL
> 2005.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>SELECT </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
> ROUTINE_NAME</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2> ,
> ROUTINE_DEFINITION</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>FROM
> INFORMATION_SCHEMA.ROUTINES</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>WHERE ROUTINE_NAME =
> {MySprocName}</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- <BR>Arnie Rowland, YACE* <BR>"To be
> successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>*Yet Another certification Exam</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Razvan Socol" <</FONT><A
> href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:rsocol@.gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
> size=2>rsocol@.gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>> wrote in me
ssage
> </FONT><A
> href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:1151582710.965580.171600@.d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com"><FONT
> face=Arial
> size=2>news:1151582710.965580.171600@.d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com</FONT></
A><FONT
> face=Arial size=2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Robert Brav
ery
> wrote:<BR>>> How can I select the contents of a SP to a text
> file<BR>> <BR>> In SQL Server 2005, you can use the OBJECT_DEFINITIO
N
> function, like<BR>> this:<BR>> SELECT
> OBJECT_DEFINITION(OBJECT_ID('ProcedureNa
me'))<BR>> <BR>> In SQL Serv
er
> 2000, you can query the syscomments table, like this:<BR>> SELECT text
FROM
> syscomments WHERE id=OBJECT_ID('ProcedureName')<BR>> but if the procedu
re
> text is longer than 4K, it will be split across<BR>> multiple rows.<BR>
> <BR>> To store the result in a file, either use copy/paste (if it's a<B
R>>
> one-time job) or a command-line utility like BCP or OSQL/SQLCMD.<BR>>
> <BR>> Razvan<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>
> --=_NextPart_000_0E97_01C69B57.2E222ED0--|||Quite true. I should have added that as a 'proviso'. (My rule of thumb is
that if the sproc exceeds 4k chars, then it is probably not very ATOMIC and
most likely is a candidate for re-enginering. -it doesn't always work, but
is good to have as a goal.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"SQL Menace" <denis.gobo@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151596104.047640.163330@.j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But if your proc is longer than 4000 characters then only the first
> 4000 character will be returned, the rest will be truncated
> Denis the SQL Menace
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
> Arnie Rowland wrote:
>|||> Quite true. I should have added that as a 'proviso'. (My rule of thumb is
> that if the sproc exceeds 4k chars, then it is probably not very ATOMIC
> and most likely is a candidate for re-enginering. -it doesn't always work,
> but is good to have as a goal.)
I'd agree. I very rarely see procedures that exceed 2k, except when I am
working on them for other reasons than size (e.g. they are slow, or do
stupid things). I have inherited a few doozies in the past but there are
certainly none that large in any of the systems I currently maintain (never
mind develop).
A|||Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP] wrote:
> All the more reason to use sp_helptext instead of selecting from system
> tables.
Of course; I forgot about sp_helptext.
Razvan

Saturday, February 25, 2012

CONTAINSTABLE inconsistency with phrase

Hi

I have a table in Sql Server 2000 with full text indexing setup on a column called 'contents' with a datatype of Text.

The column contains HTML, and I want to search for a particular link eg.

<a href="/hm/default.aspx?i=40559#secure">

..by using the following phrase:

/hm/default.aspx?i=40559

..in a CONTAINSTABLE query.

I need to find the phrase within the html. This is tricky because containstable only allows a wildcard at the end of the phrase, ie I can't search for '*/hm/default.aspx?i=40559*' with an asterisk at each end.

BUT, when I try the following query on my development server, it works without any asterisks:

SELECT item_id, contents, a.RANK FROM
CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a, item b
WHERE (a.[KEY] = b.item_id AND path LIKE '%10646%')

The row is returned but I don't understand why. I thought the full text would try to find the phrase on its own (with no html surrounding it)? On my live server, it doesn't work (also Sql 2000). The data and the FT catalogs are the same on both machines. What else could cause this difference?

Any help greatly appreciated.

Ed

You get the data is because of the join. Try running just the containstable() query by itself and you should notice it.

|||

Thanks.

I tried it without the join as

SELECT item_id, contents FROM
CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a, item b

..but it's not returning the row on my live server. It works ok on my dev server which seems odd?

|||

What do you get for these?

SELECT * FROM CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a

select * from item b where , item b
WHERE LIKE '%10646%'

Also, your original query can be rewriten as this.

SELECT * FROM CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a

join item b on (a.[KEY] = b.item_id AND b.path LIKE '%10646%')

Do you see why you get more rows returned now.

|||

Thanks for your help oj.

I tried

SELECT * FROM CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a

..but no rows returned.

Works on my dev server no problem, row IS returned.

Still unsure about what's causing this. I tried your rewrite of the query but it's not returning the row either. Am I right in thinking that containstable searches for words (ie with a space at either end) or word prefixes, and if so, why is this working on my dev server in the first place?

Thanks again.

|||

Perhaps, there is no such row exist. Try

SELECT * FROM item

where contents like '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559%'

Also, try update/repopulate your fts.

|||

Thanks oj

The LIKE query returns the row just fine:

SELECT * FROM item
where contents like '%/hm/default.aspx?i=40559%'

I've tried rebuilding and repopulating the catalogs (several times) but it still won't work. One thing I should mention is I deleted the contents of my noise.dat and noise.eng files, but I don't think that's significant.

It seems the only option is to grab the column and do a string.indexof('phrase') method in my code, which is annoying. Still don't get why it works on one envrionment and not the other.

Ed

CONTAINSTABLE and wildcard inconsistency

I have a table in Sql Server 2000 with full text indexing setup on a column
called 'contents' with a datatype of Text.
The column contains HTML, and I want to search for a particular link eg.
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/hm/default.aspx?i=40559#secure">
...by using the following phrase:
/hm/default.aspx?i=40559
...in a CONTAINSTABLE query.
I need to find the phrase within the html. This is tricky because
containstable only allows a wildcard at the end of the phrase, ie I can't
search for '*/hm/default.aspx?i=40559*' with an asterisk at each end.
BUT, when I try the following query on my development server, it works
without any asterisks:
SELECT item_id, contents, a.RANK FROM
CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a, item b
WHERE (a.[KEY] = b.item_id AND path LIKE '%10646%')
The row is returned but I don't understand why. I thought the full text
would try to find the phrase on its own (with no html surrounding it)? On my
live server, it doesn't work (also Sql 2000). The data and the FT catalogs
and the word-breaker are the same on both machines. What else could cause
this difference?
Any help greatly appreciated.
Ed
This could be a version issue, what are the results of select @.@.version from
both servers.
On my machine, using us_english, I get <a
href="/hm/default.aspx?i=40559#secure">
indexed and queried as a, href, hm, default, aspx, i, 40559, and secure.
I would also check the noise word lists as Daniel suggests to make sure they
are identical.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"edwaldo" <edwaldo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C93D95AE-3296-42CD-B42E-10FCC841369F@.microsoft.com...
>I have a table in Sql Server 2000 with full text indexing setup on a column
> called 'contents' with a datatype of Text.
> The column contains HTML, and I want to search for a particular link eg.
> <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/hm/default.aspx?i=40559#secure">
> ..by using the following phrase:
> /hm/default.aspx?i=40559
> ..in a CONTAINSTABLE query.
> I need to find the phrase within the html. This is tricky because
> containstable only allows a wildcard at the end of the phrase, ie I can't
> search for '*/hm/default.aspx?i=40559*' with an asterisk at each end.
> BUT, when I try the following query on my development server, it works
> without any asterisks:
> SELECT item_id, contents, a.RANK FROM
> CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '/hm/default.aspx?i=40559') as a, item b
> WHERE (a.[KEY] = b.item_id AND path LIKE '%10646%')
> The row is returned but I don't understand why. I thought the full text
> would try to find the phrase on its own (with no html surrounding it)? On
> my
> live server, it doesn't work (also Sql 2000). The data and the FT
> catalogs
> and the word-breaker are the same on both machines. What else could cause
> this difference?
> Any help greatly appreciated.
> Ed
>
|||Hilary/Daniel,
Thank you both for your help with this.
To reiterate, on server A the containtable does return the row. Version is
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.194 (Intel X86) Developer Edition on
Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 1)
On server B it doesn't. Version is
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Standard Edition on
Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
I tried splitting the phrase as you suggested:
CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '"hm default aspx i 40559"')
...works on server A, not on server B. Which is a shame because this would
be easy to implement.
On both machines the data is the same. On both machines I cleared the
contents of the noise files - noise.dat and noise.eng are both empty. I then
created the FT catalogs using the English (United Kingdom) word breaker. I
have repopulated each several times, and a simple LIKE query returns the row
on both servers.
I appreciate why it shouldn't work on server B, but I'm intrigued as to why
it works on server A at all!
Thanks again.
Ed
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> This could be a version issue, what are the results of select @.@.version from
> both servers.
> On my machine, using us_english, I get <a
> href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/hm/default.aspx?i=40559#secure">
> indexed and queried as a, href, hm, default, aspx, i, 40559, and secure.
> I would also check the noise word lists as Daniel suggests to make sure they
> are identical.
>
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "edwaldo" <edwaldo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C93D95AE-3296-42CD-B42E-10FCC841369F@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The problem is that you are using different word breakers. Apply Sp4 on both
SQL Server versions to get consistent behavior.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"edwaldo" <edwaldo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6F1AE47C-DD30-4AF5-AC45-9F61C73710E5@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hilary/Daniel,
> Thank you both for your help with this.
> To reiterate, on server A the containtable does return the row. Version
> is
> Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.194 (Intel X86) Developer Edition on
> Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 1)
> On server B it doesn't. Version is
> Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Standard Edition on
> Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
> I tried splitting the phrase as you suggested:
> CONTAINSTABLE(item, contents, '"hm default aspx i 40559"')
> ..works on server A, not on server B. Which is a shame because this would
> be easy to implement.
> On both machines the data is the same. On both machines I cleared the
> contents of the noise files - noise.dat and noise.eng are both empty. I
> then
> created the FT catalogs using the English (United Kingdom) word breaker.
> I
> have repopulated each several times, and a simple LIKE query returns the
> row
> on both servers.
> I appreciate why it shouldn't work on server B, but I'm intrigued as to
> why
> it works on server A at all!
> Thanks again.
> Ed
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote: