Ampersand

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

gxdata - 19 Jul 2006 09:40 GMT

re SQL Server 2000
I've read some info on John Kane's blog about different behaviour of the
work-breaking DLLs for Win2K and Win2003 Server (and WinXP - ? not sure),
and he gives the example of "AT&T".

Is there some 'general' way of doing FTS for text expressions that include
the & (ampersand)? A post (elsewhere) suggests that -
SQL Server 2000 on Windows 2003: Searching for "OH&S" fails
· SQL Server 2000 on Windows 2000: Searching for "OH&H" works

It's also advised that "I have investigated the problem and it appears that
the search service word breaker has been modified to include '&' as a word
breaker in Windows 2003 and Windows XP. I've found two 'dodgy' solutions to
the problem by trimming the noise words file or switch dlls to have the
Windows 2000 search functionality in windows 2003. "

Are these dodgy solutions the only ones to use?

Signature

Ian Thomas

Reply to this Message

Hilary Cotter - 20 Jul 2006 02:13 GMT

remove all the single letters from your noise word list and rebuild your
catalog. Then searches on OH&H will match with OH&H, OH H, OH!H etc.

Signature

Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.

This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.

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

> re SQL Server 2000
> I've read some info on John Kane's blog about different behaviour of the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Are these dodgy solutions the only ones to use?

Reply to this Message

gxdata - 20 Jul 2006 06:11 GMT

Thanks

Signature

IL Thomas

> remove all the single letters from your noise word list and rebuild your
> catalog. Then searches on OH&H will match with OH&H, OH H, OH!H etc.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>
>> Are these dodgy solutions the only ones to use?

Reply to this Message