Re: CONTAINS vs. CONTAINSTABLE performance
- From: "Daniel Crichton" <msnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:45:15 +0100
Kerry wrote on 30 Apr 2007 11:40:08 -0700:
We are implementing an FTS to support google-like drop down boxes.
When I originally constructed my query using a "Contains" parameter,
performance was in the neighborhood of 4 seconds. However, when we
implemented CONTAINSQUERY, performance was on-par with our
expectations (far less than a second).
The table being searched contains < 500 rows total, and the final
results set is < 10 rows at this juncture. But this is just on a
development database, and ultimately we expected thousands of rows
instead of hundreds.
Can anyone tell me why the performance is so dramatically different
and is there something common in the building of FTS queries that we
could do differently?
I'd post the queries, but really there is no significant difference
between them and the example queries except that there are multiple
tables involved.
Thanks!
Load the queries into isql and generate the execution plans, they might help
you to understand why the performance is improved.
In my own tests I found negligible difference between using CONTAINS and
CONTAINSTABLE, as I never use TOP N BY RANK and my queries are on the whole
simple and fit in a single CONTAINS clause using a single table, so the
internal query engine joining and filtering is pretty much the same as that
used when joining the table results with the source table.
Dan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CONTAINS vs. CONTAINSTABLE performance
- From: Kerry
- Re: CONTAINS vs. CONTAINSTABLE performance
- Prev by Date: Re: Full Text Catalog Not Building
- Next by Date: Re: CONTAINS vs. CONTAINSTABLE performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Full Text Catalog Not Building
- Next by thread: Re: CONTAINS vs. CONTAINSTABLE performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|