Re: Newbie question:why use stack in Full-Text index?
- From: "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 07:33:08 -0400
It may not be the best for searching and returning a single value, or
seeking, or scanning, but it is best for the type of proximity searches;
i.e. a search on "George Bush" has to return all rows where George is
immediately followed by Bush.
--
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
"fumade" <fumade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C011C00E-B504-4137-8E0F-46B60858EC30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Howdy,
The following is quoted from book online:
Instead of constructing a B-tree structure based on a value stored in a
particular row, MSFTESQL builds an inverted, stacked, compressed index
structure based on individual tokens from the text being indexed.
What confused me is that stack, as a data structure, is not a good option
for searching.
So why it uses stack, will it hurt the performance?
Thanks in advance.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Architecture question
- Next by Date: Re: what the path of gatherer logs?
- Previous by thread: Re: Architecture question
- Next by thread: Re: Newbie question:why use stack in Full-Text index?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading