Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
DB Engine
SQL ServerMSDESQL Server CE
Services
Analysis (Data Mining)Analysis (OLAP)DTSIntegration ServicesNotification ServicesReporting Services
Programming
CLRConnectivitySQLXML
Other Technologies
ClusteringEnglish QueryFull-Text SearchReplicationService Broker
General
Data WarehousingPerformanceSecuritySetupSQL Server ToolsOther SQL Server Topics
DirectoryUser Groups
Related Topics
MS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server Products.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentJava DevelopmentMore Topics ...

SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Full-Text Search / July 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Too many results error

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Equality72521 - 26 Jun 2007 13:43 GMT
Hi,

I can't find this covered elsewhere in here, but apologies in advance if it
has already been done to death:

SQL 2000 SP4

I've created a single column full text index on a single table (proof of
concept, more coming later) and the CONTAINS search is giving me the error:

"Msg 7643, Level 16, State 0, Line 1
Your search generated too many results. Please perform a more specific
search."

A LIKE query with similar criteria returns 102998 rows, so I'm guessing it's
the same or a similar amount for the FTS search.

I haven't encountered the error before, some superficial Google searching
indicates this message is as a result of a fix in SP3.

Can anyone offer any insight? As the error suggests, a more refined search
works OK, but I'm in denial that this few rows is enough to eliminate FTS as
an option.

Many thanks,
Steve
Hilary Cotter - 27 Jun 2007 14:35 GMT
can you post a sample query which generates this result?

Signature

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

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Many thanks,
> Steve
Equality72521 - 28 Jun 2007 10:16 GMT
Hi Hilary, thanks for replying.

The query I used was as follows (generic field / table placeholder used):

SELECT <field1> FROM <table1> WHERE CONTAINS(<field1>, ' "AZ*" ')

I was away from the office yesterday and interestingly, when I run the exact
same query today, I don't get the error - I also get no results back, which
is in keeping with the fix I believe. Perhaps the error was related to the
index being built in the background as I was attempting the query?

There are definitely results that should be returned; when I run a LIKE
query I get 102998 rows returned:

SELECT <field1> FROM <table1> WHERE <field1> LIKE 'AZ%'

Also, if I refine the FTS search slightly, I get 6612 rows returned which
seems to indicate that the index is populated correctly:

SELECT <field1> FROM <table1> WHERE CONTAINS(<field1>, ' "AZ1*" ')

Many thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Steve

> can you post a sample query which generates this result?
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> > Many thanks,
> > Steve
Daniel Crichton - 29 Jun 2007 09:44 GMT
Equality72521 wrote  on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:16:03 -0700:

> Hi Hilary, thanks for replying.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> related to the index being built in the background as I was attempting the
> query?

This seems to be contrary to the fix, which is supposed to throw the error
message according to http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;296456

The fix for SQL2K has been present since SP2.

> There are definitely results that should be returned; when I run a LIKE
> query I get 102998 rows returned:

The above URL suggests that this error will fire when there are more than
around 20,000 results, so getting an error with that many results would be
expected.

Dan
Equality72521 - 29 Jun 2007 15:46 GMT
Thanks for your input Daniel.

I've just noticed that the error doesn't occur on SQL 2005, and there
doesn't appear to be a 20000 row limitation; the same CONTAINS query that
returns zero rows in SQL 2000 returns all rows in SQL 2005.

Thanks again.

Steve

> Equality72521 wrote  on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:16:03 -0700:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Dan
Simon Sabin - 04 Jul 2007 19:42 GMT
Hello Equality72521,

SQL 2005 has a very different architecture to SQL 2000 so more rows can be
managed

Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons

> Thanks for your input Daniel.
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>>
>> Dan
Equality72521 - 05 Jul 2007 09:32 GMT
Thanks for the response Simon. Do you know what the upper limit is within
2005, if indeed there is one?

Regards,
Steve

> Hello Equality72521,
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> >>
> >> Dan
Simon Sabin - 05 Jul 2007 18:04 GMT
Hello Equality72521,

I doubt there is a fixed one. More a resource imposed one, i.e. if you hardware
can take it.

Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons

> Thanks for the response Simon. Do you know what the upper limit is
> within 2005, if indeed there is one?
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>>>>
>>>> Dan
Equality72521 - 06 Jul 2007 13:36 GMT
Great - thanks again Simon.

Steve

> Hello Equality72521,
>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.