Griff wrote:
> I've no idea whether this would work, but have you tried to re-order the
> query so that the inner join is the other way around?

Griff wrote:
> I think I've missed something - why are you doing an inner join in the first
> place?

<johnsolver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142349525.478145.207270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Griff wrote:
>> I think I've missed something - why are you doing an inner join in the
>> first
>> place?
> Because CONTAINSTABLE returns a table with [key],[rank] columns which I
> need (afaik it's the normal way to use CONTAINSTABLE)
>

Simon Sabin wrote:
> This is a feature of full text on SQL 2000, because full text is a remote
> oledb source the optimiser doesn't have any statistics on it and so is not
> likely to use it as a filtering source for the query.
>
> You can force it by using a query hint
>
> --
> Simon Sabin
> SQL Server MVP
> http://sqljunkies.com/weblog/simons

<johnsolver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144773302.033912.314070@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Simon Sabin wrote:
>> This is a feature of full text on SQL 2000, because full text is a remote
>> oledb source the optimiser doesn't have any statistics on it and so is
>> not
>> likely to use it as a filtering source for the query.
>>
>> You can force it by using a query hint
>>
>> --
>> Simon Sabin
>> SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqljunkies.com/weblog/simons
> Well I'm using SQL 2005, anyways what query hint should I use?
>
> Thanks.
>

Simon Sabin wrote:
> Have a look at join hints in BOL. It depends on the number of rows you
> expect to get back in your contains table statement

<johnsolver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144849619.341581.232600@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Simon Sabin wrote:
>> Have a look at join hints in BOL. It depends on the number of rows you
>> expect to get back in your contains table statement
> Many thanks, problem partially solved using the INNER LOOP JOINT hint,
> which forced the plan to be built based on the set gotten from the
> CONTAINSTABLE, thanks.
>
> On the same note, assuming I have several queries I need to run and all
> need to be joined to the same result set from the same containstable
> statement, would it make sense to at first insert the results of the
> CONTAINSTABLE intto a temp table or @table or a normal table with a
> session id.
>
> I've tried it small result sets of around 1-2k rows returned from FTS
> and it seems to work ok, however if the FTS returns 15k+ results it
> starts to lag badly, which seems a bit weird since without the table I
> have to requery the FTS several times...
>
> Thanks.
>