ContainsTable is faster than Contains because
1) it only returns two columns key and rank
2) you can limit the number of results returned by the full-text search
engine by the top_n_by_rank parameter.
If you join it against the base table without using the top_n_by_rank
parameter there are no significant performance improvements.
--
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 [quoted text, click to view] "rn" <anonymous@devdex.com> wrote in message
news:OjnaBYP2GHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> What was the verdict on the two ways to perform the full-text query,
> contains vs. containstable?
>
> It seemed the original poster found that containstable worked faster and
> wanted to know if was essentially the same query. The question also was
> why did the containstable work faster.
>
> It didn't seem like those two questions were really answered. It seemed
> like the original poster had found a faster way to do the query, and
> then the discussion went on to why the contains method was slow and some
> other workarounds. What was wrong with the containstable method?
>
> Should we all use constainstable instead of contains? Is there a flaw
> in the query optimizer?
>
> Can we keep this thread going? It seems important.
>
>
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex
http://www.developersdex.com ***