"solex" <solex@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uqJFrW#wDHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> I have been asked to "try" to quantify the impact of server performance
when
> enabling the FT-Engine. I plan on indexing 2 columns in two different
table
> the columns are each defined as Varchar(255). I plan on doing an
> incremental update in the evening.
>
> What if any would be the impact of doing a FT-Search uing the FT-Index as
> opposed to doing a normal query?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>

"John Kane" <jt-kane@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:etHaTSAxDHA.2528@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dan,
> Primarily, you will see "impact" relative to SQL Server in disk i/o,
memory
> and CPU usage. Although, you will need to populate your FT-enabled table
> with millions of rows in order to see this impact. You should also test
your
> multi-million row table using T-SQL LIKE vs. SQL FTS queries using
CONTAINS*
> or FREETEXT* and compare both their relative performance as well as
returned
> results as the results will be difference depending upon what exact search
> word(s) you use. For references, you should review SQL Server 2000 BOL
title
> "Full-text Search Recommendations" as well as
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/sql/content/2000papers/fts_white%20paper.asp
>
> Regards,
> John Kane
>
>
>
>
> "solex" <solex@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uqJFrW#wDHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have been asked to "try" to quantify the impact of server performance
> when
> > enabling the FT-Engine. I plan on indexing 2 columns in two different
> table
> > the columns are each defined as Varchar(255). I plan on doing an
> > incremental update in the evening.
> >
> > What if any would be the impact of doing a FT-Search uing the FT-Index
as
> > opposed to doing a normal query?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dan
> >
> >
>
>