SQL Server 2000 F/T and WSS

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

e-Merging Solutions - 23 Jun 2005 15:16 GMT

Hello, I recently posted this question on the WSS group, and it was
recommended that we post the question here, since WSS uses the SQL Server
F/T engine.

We have WSS 2003 running on a SQL Server 2000. WSS. We tested F/T searches
and the documents that we expect should be coming at the top
of the list (the ones with more instances of the keyword being searched) are
not - ones with less instances come before.

Does anyone understand how the MS SQL Server F/T engine logic works (i.e.
how does it determine the relevancy of documents) when use in combination
with WSS.

Thanks.

Reply to this Message

John Kane - 23 Jun 2005 16:35 GMT

e-Merging Solutions,
Yes, I do as I just completed presented on these topics at DevTeach 2005.
However, I need some additional information from you, can you post the full
output of -- SELECT @@version -- as this will provide me with both the exact
version of SQL Server (plus SP level) as well as the OS Platform that you
are using.

Additionally, WSS 2003 (or Sharepoint 2003) by default uses FREETEXTTABLE
vs. CONTAINSTABLE that can provide a more precise results. You can use the
REPLACE function to replace CONTAINSTABLE for the FREETEXTTABLE if you want
to get more precise results, however, CONTAINS while more precise uses more
than just the number of keyword per row as a factor in determining the RANK
value for any row returned.

Thanks,
John

Signature

SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/

> Hello, I recently posted this question on the WSS group, and it was
> recommended that we post the question here, since WSS uses the SQL Server
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Reply to this Message

e-Merging Solutions - 23 Jun 2005 19:05 GMT

John,

Here's the result of running --SELECT @@version--:

"Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition on Windows
NT 5.2 (Build 3790: )"

Thanks

> e-Merging Solutions,
> Yes, I do as I just completed presented on these topics at DevTeach 2005.
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>>
>> Thanks.

Reply to this Message

ML - 19 Jul 2005 00:44 GMT

I suspect the root of your dismay lies within the very default. FREETEXTTABLE
searches by meaning, while you were probably expecting it to find exact
matches to your expressions.

I'd expect better (or more appropriate results) with the CONTAINSTABLE
function.

ML

Reply to this Message

Hilary Cotter - 19 Jul 2005 19:11 GMT

I'm going to quibble here. Freetext merely stems words according to its
declensions (i.e. plural, possessive) and conjugations (all verb forms). Its
not exactly meaning; BOL is not exactly clear here. For example it can't
distinguish between the meaning of the word bank in the phrases "I went to
the bank" or "I saw her on the left bank", or "The car banked to the right."

Signature

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

> I suspect the root of your dismay lies within the very default. FREETEXTTABLE
> searches by meaning, while you were probably expecting it to find exact
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> ML

Reply to this Message

ML - 19 Jul 2005 20:07 GMT

I see. Thank you. I guess BOL really explains this a bit differently.

I thought this was just due to the fact that my native language (Slovenian)
is not natively supported by SQL. Since I have come across results that do
support your explanation.

ML

Reply to this Message