> m_theologos wrote:
> > - ...In optimizing the CONTAINING predicate. Perhaps is necessary to
> > have a few words on this:
> >
> >
> I'm afraid you don't understand the "containing" predicate. It is
> nothing more than a case insensitive substring search. It is not word
> based and can't be indexed.
>
> Full context text search is quite a different beast. It is
> straightforward (and quite efficient) to implement as a btree, but
> rather than encoding record number, it must carry <table, field, record,
> word position> to enable cross table, phrase, and proximity weighting.
>
> Historically, database guys don't "get" search. You're never going to
> get any where trying to convince them you have a better way to handle
> the index (I don't think you do) until you convince them that there is a
> difference between full context word search and "containing". Good luck.

Ji,

how would you handle partial word searching with <table, field, record,
word position>?

eg: a search for "and" could/should return "Gandalf"

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com