Re: FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- From: "Bahama Joe" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:22:23 -0500
Thanks for the reply. Yes, this is SQL 2005 - what optimizations are you
referring to? I believe I have applied all optimizations that I've been able
to find in the various posts and online docs.
I know that I can limit the size of the resultset with top_n_by_rank, but in
this case, I'm trying to get back the full set of results. Another form of
my query is to do a "select count(*)", which has the same response times. I
believe this is because the full resultset is returned from the FTE back to
SQL Server, and then the count is taken on that. Is there a way to structure
the query to tell the FTE that you just want the count of results, so that
it doesn't ship the full results back to SQL Server?
Essentially, I'm trying to create a search engine, where the results will be
displayed back to the user in paginated form, so it will always display a
subset of the resultset, but I'd like to also display "Showing results 1-20
of 40,000", so I need a way to get the size of the resultset.
With regard to hardware, would you expect that I will get the most bang for
my buck by a) spreading my data across more disks (via RAID) in a single
server, b) creating a cluster of separate servers, c) adding more memory, or
d) adding more CPU's?
Thanks.
.
- References:
- FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- From: Bahama Joe
- Re: FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- From: Hilary Cotter
- FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- Prev by Date: Re: FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- Next by Date: Re: FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- Previous by thread: Re: FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- Next by thread: Re: FTS query performance on SQL 2005
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
