Re: Does FTS in SQL 7 have known issues with not indexing records?

From: Hilary Cotter (hilary.cotter_at_gmail.com)
Date: 10/12/04


Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:08:01 -0400

You can get these errors for a variety of reasons.

You get 0 rows could not be indexed typically for the below reasons.

1) the account SQL Server runs under is not registered with MSSearch. You
can get this when you change the SQL Server service account through control
panel instead of via Enterprise Manager. This will cause the entire table
not to be indexed.
2) verify that the login BUILTIN\Administrator exists in the login folder.
If it does not exist add it in.

You will get xxx rows could not be indexed typically for the below reasons
1) one or more rows were deleted since the last population
2) a row was locked
3) a row could contain a very large amount of data which could not be
extracted in the time MSSearch waits to extract each row.

-- 
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Daniel Crichton" <msnews@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u4xryIDsEHA.1816@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Daniel Crichton" <msnews@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23jpG03CsEHA.3748@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > After running a full population again it appears to have now indexed
> > everything. I'll be doing some more preliminary testing before putting
> this
> > live though, last thing I want is for customers not to be able to find
> items
> > in our database (the example I gave of Being Jordan was the top selling
> book
> > a few weeks ago, not having that listed in search results would have
been
> > disastrous for us.
>
> Looking at the event logs I've noticed that despite the item count being
> correct, in the information event at completion of an incremental update
> there is:
>
> "Detected end of incremental crawl for project <SQLServer SQL0002300005>.
> Successfully processed 365614 documents, 0K. Failed to filter 13
documents.
> Modified 282 documents."
>
> Followed by a warning event with ID 3051 containing:
>
> "Detected 13 URLs that could not be reached or were denied access in
project
> <SQLServer SQL0002300005>."
>
> I assume that for some reason 13 items couldn't be accessed when running
the
> incremental search. I'm running another one now to see if I get the same
> messages, as it's only taking around 20 mins to run the incremental
compared
> to 4 hours running the full population.
>
>
>
> I've just looked back at the full population I ran yesterday, and have
> noticed that it also logged a warning event (I have updated some records
> since this was built, hence the difference in the item counts). Here's the
> information one first:
>
> "Detected end of crawl for project <SQLServer SQL0002300005>. Successfully
> processed 365652 documents, 0K. Failed to filter 0 documents."
>
> Followed by a warning event:
>
> "Detected 365452 URLs that could not be reached or were denied access in
> project <SQLServer SQL0002300005>."
>
> Whereas the previous pair of errors made sense in that the information
> message indicates that 13 records couldn't be indexed, and the warning
seems
> to confirm this, the pair for the full population are confusing in that
they
> don't match. Does this indicate a potential problem in the indexing
system?
> Or is the logging of mismatched item counts in the event log a normal
> occurrence?
>
> Dan
>
>


Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are embedded views (Views within views...) evil and if so why?
    ... The majority of my problem is the maintanence of nested views in the ... not everyone is so careful in there use. ... SQL Server MVP ... posting this thread is to learn more about the technical reasons - ie. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: Problem when changing Views
    ... There aree several reasons. ... I use neither of the tools, but I guess that Design View resubmits the ... Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ... Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: Running multiple instances in production environment. Good or bad?
    ... > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP ... > that login sysadmin role membership... ... >> to be negative to running multiple instances in a production ... > There are several reasons why most of us would TRY very hard NOT to have ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: STORED PROCEDURE - passing table name as a parameter
    ... concatenation of a SQL string would be a better solution. ... I don't like the design for all the reasons already ... > I would expect SQL Server to be smart to not access the other tables. ... > Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)