Still wondering

What was the verdict on the two ways to perform the full-text query,
contains vs. containstable?

It seemed the original poster found that containstable worked faster and
wanted to know if was essentially the same query. The question also was
why did the containstable work faster.

It didn't seem like those two questions were really answered. It seemed
like the original poster had found a faster way to do the query, and
then the discussion went on to why the contains method was slow and some
other workarounds. What was wrong with the containstable method?

Should we all use constainstable instead of contains? Is there a flaw
in the query optimizer?

Can we keep this thread going? It seems important.



*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Search the search result
    ... >which contain Microsoft and Indexing Services: ... >It does require a second hit on the catalog though. ... it still seems to me like you're merely extending the original query ... Though it really is a theoretical issue, since the original poster ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.indexserver)
  • Re: Still wondering
    ... Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy ... It seemed the original poster found that containstable worked faster and ... wanted to know if was essentially the same query. ... What was wrong with the containstable method? ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext)
  • Re: Hyperlink To Top Left Corner
    ... I hadn't noticed at first that you were not the original poster. ... more pleasant to reply to someone in the newsgroups with a real name. ... this neighbourhood. ... Others had replied (to my query) quoting exemplary ...
    (microsoft.public.excel)
Loading