full-text-indexing

Create fulltext index within Entity Framework Coded Migrations

青春壹個敷衍的年華 提交于 2019-11-30 01:24:18
问题 TLDR; How do you add a full text index using Entity framework 5 coded migrations I'm having issues adding a full text index to a database using Entity framework migrations. It needs to be there from the start so I'm attempting modifying the InitialCreate migration that was automatically generated to add it. As there isn't a way to do it via the DbMigrations API I've resorted to running inline sql at the end of the 'Up' code. Sql("create fulltext catalog AppNameCatalog;"); Sql("create fulltext

How to add more OR searches with CONTAINS Brings Query to Crawl?

十年热恋 提交于 2019-11-29 06:29:59
I have a simple query that relies on two full-text indexed tables, but it runs extremely slow when I have the CONTAINS combined with any additional OR search. As seen in the execution plan, the two full text searches crush the performance. If I query with just 1 of the CONTAINS, or neither, the query is sub-second, but the moment you add OR into the mix the query becomes ill-fated. The two tables are nothing special, they're not overly wide (42 cols in one, 21 in the other; maybe 10 cols are FT indexed in each) or even contain very many records (36k recs in the biggest of the two). I was able

Postgresql ILIKE versus TSEARCH

痞子三分冷 提交于 2019-11-29 04:41:51
I have a query with a number of test fields something like this: SELECT * FROM some-table WHERE field1 ILIKE "%thing%" OR field2 ILIKE "%thing" OR field3 ILIKE "%thing"; The columns are pretty much all varchar(50) or thereabouts. Now I understand to improve performance I should index the fields upon which the search operates. Should I be considering replacing ILIKE with TSEARCH completely? A full text search setup is not identical to a "contains" like query. It stems words etc so you can match "cars" against "car". If you really want a fast ILIKE then no standard database index or FTS will

How to get frequently occurring phrases with Lucene

本秂侑毒 提交于 2019-11-29 02:32:35
I would like to get some frequently occurring phrases with Lucene. I am getting some information from TXT files, and I am losing a lot of context for not having information for phrases e.g. "information retrieval" is indexed as two separate words. What is the way to get the phrases like this? I can not find anything useful on internet, all the advices, links, hints especially examples are appreciated! EDIT: I store my documents just by title and content: Document doc = new Document(); doc.add(new Field("name", f.getName(), Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED)); doc.add(new Field("text",

FullText search with CONTAINS on multiple columns and predicate - AND

一个人想着一个人 提交于 2019-11-29 02:18:56
问题 I have a search table with, say, 4 columns of text data to search. I do something like this: SELECT * FROM dbo.SearchTable WHERE CONTAINS((co1, col2, col3, col4), 'term1 AND term2') It looks like Contains only returns true if term1 and term2 are in the same column. Is there any way to specify that all columns should be included with an AND? If not, my idea is to JSON all search columns and stick them into one. That way I can full text search them but still easily extract the individual

Oracle: Full text search with condition

*爱你&永不变心* 提交于 2019-11-28 18:27:08
I've created an Oracle Text index like the following: create index my_idx on my_table (text) indextype is ctxsys.context; And I can then do the following: select * from my_table where contains(text, '%blah%') > 0; But lets say we have a have another column in this table, say group_id , and I wanted to do the following query instead: select * from my_table where contains(text, '%blah%') > 0 and group_id = 43; With the above index, Oracle will have to search for all items that contain 'blah' , and then check all of their group_id s. Ideally, I'd prefer to only search the items with group_id = 43

Faster search in Lucene - Is there a way to keep the whole index in RAM?

孤街醉人 提交于 2019-11-28 16:53:41
Is there a way of keeping the index in RAM instead of keeping it on the hard disk? We want to make searching faster. Narayan Is there a way of keeping the index in RAM instead of keeping it on the hard disk? Using the RAMDirectory class SampleUsage here Also from the Lucene FAQs ImproveSearchingSpeed Generally for faster indexing performance it's best to flush by RAM usage instead of document count and use as large a RAM buffer as you can. Also check this question: EDIT: RE: RamDirectory , As the API says RamDirectory is A memory-resident Directory implementation. , it keeps only those index

#1191 - Can't find FULLTEXT index matching the column list [duplicate]

若如初见. 提交于 2019-11-28 14:19:25
This question already has an answer here: Can't find FULLTEXT index matching the column list (indexes is set) 3 answers Iam trying to execute this query in my xampp, but it is not turning up. SELECT pid,description,alttext FROM wp_ngg_pictures WHERE MATCH (description, filename, alttext) AGAINST ('*image2*' IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND exclude != 1 it has returned this error #1191 - Can't find FULLTEXT index matching the column list. can any one help me plz Manju ALTER TABLE table ADD FULLTEXT index_name(column1); Try the above query to add full text index to the columns. 来源: https://stackoverflow.com

Code first custom SQL migration timeout exception

ぃ、小莉子 提交于 2019-11-28 10:46:15
I am trying to create FULL TEXT index using Entity Framework Migration by executing custom Sql. My migration class looks like this: public partial class DocumentContentFullTextIndex : DbMigration { public override void Up() { AlterColumn("dbo.Attachments", "ContentType", c => c.String(maxLength: 260)); Sql("CREATE FULLTEXT CATALOG FullTextIndexes AS DEFAULT;", true); Sql(@"CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX ON [Attachments]( Content TYPE COLUMN ContentType Language 'ENGLISH' ) KEY INDEX [PK_dbo.Attachments] ON FullTextIndexes;", true); } public override void Down() { AlterColumn("dbo.Attachments",

How to add more OR searches with CONTAINS Brings Query to Crawl?

青春壹個敷衍的年華 提交于 2019-11-28 00:18:11
问题 I have a simple query that relies on two full-text indexed tables, but it runs extremely slow when I have the CONTAINS combined with any additional OR search. As seen in the execution plan, the two full text searches crush the performance. If I query with just 1 of the CONTAINS, or neither, the query is sub-second, but the moment you add OR into the mix the query becomes ill-fated. The two tables are nothing special, they're not overly wide (42 cols in one, 21 in the other; maybe 10 cols are