The challenge is determining what extra SARG to use. It would be great if
i.e. matching "RND123*" OR "RND12*" OR "RND1*", RND123 would get a better
rank than RND1 because the former matches all three. With my testing the
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaHee7sfGHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You might want to partition the table on the fly using indexed views and
> full-text index them. Depending on the selectivity of some of the other
> columns you create the indexed view on you might be able to get smaller
> results set.
>
> Another option is to add a clause to your query, i.e. select * from
> containstable(tablename, columnname, '"SARG1" and "SARG2"), but you have
> to know in advance what SARG2 will be and how frequently it occurs in your
> content.
>
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
>
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
>
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html >
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>
http://www.indexserverfaq.com >
>
>
> "Simon Sabin" <SimonSabin@noemal.noemail> wrote in message
> news:eY7yqirfGHA.3652@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Bit of a teaser how can you achieve this.
>>
>> Assume a search criteria i.e SQL AND Server
>> I want to not return the top 5 records but a random 5 records.
>>
>> You can add anything to the indexed column and you can add anything to
>> the search, but the random results need to be out of the full results set
>> of the criteria passed in. The reason I want to do this is to avoid
>> returning the full resultset to SQL and do the filter there.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Simon Sabin
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
http://sqljunkies.com/weblog/simons >>
>>
>
>