I'm searching against a table of news articles. The 2 relevant columns are ArticleTitle and ArticleText. When I want to search an article for a particular term, i started out with
column LIKE '%term%'.
However that gave me a lot of articles with the term inside anchor links, for example <a href="example.com/*term*> which would potentially return an irrelevant article.
So then I switched to
column LIKE '% term %'.
The problem with this query is it didn't find articles who's title or text began/ended with the term. Also it didn't match against things like term- or term's, which I do want.
It seems like the query i want should be able to do something like this
'%[^a-z]term[^a-z]%
This should exclude terms within anchor links, but everything else. I think this query still excludes strings that begin/end with the term. Is there a better solution? Does SQL-Server's FULL TEXT INDEXING solve this problem?
Additionally, would it be a good idea to store ArticleTitle and ArticleText as HTML-free columns? Then i could use '%term%' without getting anchor links. These would be 2 extra columns though, because eventually i will need the original HTML for formatting purposes.
Thanks.
SQL Server's LIKE allows you to define Regex-like patterns like you described.
A better option is to use fulltext search:
WHERE CONTAINS(ArticleTitle, 'term')
exploits the index properly (the LIKE '%term%' query is slow), and provides other benefit in the search algorithm.
Additionally, you might benefit from storing a plaintext version of the article alongside the HTML version, and run your search queries on it.
SQL is not designed to interpret HTML strings. As such, you'd only be able to postpone the problem till a more difficult issue arrives (for example, a comment node that contains your search terms as part of a plain sentence).
You can still utilize FULL TEXT as a prefilter and then run an HTML analysis on the application layer to further filter your result set.
Related
In Sql Server, I have a table containing 46 million rows.
In "Title" column of table, I want make search. The word may be at any index of field value.
For example:
Value in table: BROTHERS COMPANY
Search string: ROTHER
I want this search to match the given record. This is exactly what LIKE '%ROTHER%' do. However, LIKE '%%' usage should not be used on large tables because of performance issues. How can I achieve it?
Though I don't know your requirements, your best approach may be to challenge them. Middle-of-the-string searches are usually not very practical. If you can get your users to perform prefix searches (broth%) then you can easily use Full Text's wildcard search (CONTAINS(*, '"broth*"')). Full Text can also handle suffix searches (%rothers) with a little extra work.
But when it comes to middle-of-the-string searches with SQL Server, you're stuck using LIKE. However you may be able to improve performance of LIKE by using a binary collation as explained in this article. (I hate to post a link without including its content but it is way too long of an article to post here and I don't understand the approach enough to sum it up.)
If that doesn't help and if middle-of-the-string searches are that important of a requirement then you should consider using a different search solution like Lucene.
Add Full-Text index if you want.
You can search the table using CONTAINS:
SELECT *
FROM YourTable
WHERE CONTAINS(TableColumnName, 'SearchItem')
My title sounds complicated, but the situation is very simple. People search on my site using a term such as "blackfriday".
When they conduct the search, my SQL code needs to look in various places such as a ProductTitle and ProductDescription field to find this term. For example:
SELECT *
FROM dbo.Products
WHERE ProductTitle LIKE '%blackfriday%' OR
ProductDescription LIKE '%blackfriday%'
However, the term appears differently in the database fields. It is most like to appear with a space between the words as such "Black Friday USA 2015". So without going through and adding more combinations to the WHERE clause such as WHERE ProductTitle LIKE '%Black-Friday%', is there a better way to accomplish this kind of fuzzy searching?
I have full-text search enabled on the above fields but its really not that good when I use the CONTAINS clause. And of course other terms may not be as neat as this example.
I should start by saying that "variations (of a string)" is a bit vague. You could mean plurality, verb tenses, synonyms, and/or combined words (or, ignoring spaces and punctuation between 2 words) like the example you posted: "blackfriday" vs. "black friday" vs "black-friday". I have a few solutions of which 1 or more together may work for you depending on your use case.
Ignoring punctuation
Full Text searches already ignore punctuation and match them to spaces. So black-friday will match black friday whether using FREETEXT or CONTAINS. But it won't match blackfriday.
Synonyms and combined words
Using FREETEXT or FREETEXTTABLE for your full text search is a good way to handle synonyms and some matching of combined words (I don't know which ones). You can customize the thesaurus to add more combined words assuming it's practical for you to come up with such a list.
Handling combinations of any 2 words
Maybe your use case calls for you to match poorly formatted text or hashtags. In that case I have a couple of ideas:
Write the full text query to cover each combination of words using a dictionary. For example your data layer can rewrite a search for black friday as CONTAINS(*, '"black friday" OR "blackfriday"'). This may have to get complex, for example would black friday treehouse have to be ("black friday" OR "blackfriday") AND ("treehouse" OR "tree house")? You would need a dictionary to figure out that "treehouse" is made up of 2 words and thus can be split.
If it's not practical to use a dictionary for the words being searched for (I don't know why, maybe acronyms or new memes) you could create a long query to cover every letter combination. So searching for do-re-mi could be "do re mi" OR "doremi" OR "do remi" OR "dore mi" OR "d oremi" OR "d o remi" .... Yes it will be a lot of combinations, but surprisingly it may run quickly because of how full text efficiently looks up words in the index.
A hack / workaround if searching for multiple variations is very important.
Define which fields in the DB are searchable (e.g ProductTitle, ProductDescription)
Before saving these fields in the DB, replace each space (or consecutive spaces by a placeholder e.g "%")
Search the DB for variation matches employing the placeholder
Do the reverse process when displaying these fields on your site (i.e replace placeholder with space)
Alternatively you can enable regex matching for your users (meaning they can define a regex either explicitly or let your app build one from their search term). But it is slower and probably error-prone to do it this way
After looking into everything, I have settled for using SQL's FREETEXT full-text search. Its not ideal, or accurate, but for now it will have to do.
My answer is probably inadequate but do you have any scenarios which wont be addressed by query below.
SELECT *
FROM dbo.Products
WHERE ProductTitle LIKE '%black%friday%' OR
ProductDescription LIKE '%black%friday%'
Given your data stored somewhere in a database:
Hello my name is Tom I like dinosaurs to talk about SQL.
SQL is amazing. I really like SQL.
We want to implement a site search, allowing visitors to enter terms and return relating records. A user might search for:
Dinosaurs
And the SQL:
WHERE articleBody LIKE '%Dinosaurs%'
Copes fine with returning the correct set of records.
How would we cope however, if a user mispells dinosaurs? IE:
Dinosores
(Poor sore dino). How can we search allowing for error in spelling? We can associate common misspellings we see in search with the correct spelling, and then search on the original terms + corrected term, but this is time consuming to maintain.
Any way programatically?
Edit
Appears SOUNDEX could help, but can anyone give me an example using soundex where entering the search term:
Dinosores wrocks
returns records instead of doing:
WHERE articleBody LIKE '%Dinosaurs%' OR articleBody LIKE '%Wrocks%'
which would return squadoosh?
If you're using SQL Server, have a look at SOUNDEX.
For your example:
select SOUNDEX('Dinosaurs'), SOUNDEX('Dinosores')
Returns identical values (D526) .
You can also use DIFFERENCE function (on same link as soundex) that will compare levels of similarity (4 being the most similar, 0 being the least).
SELECT DIFFERENCE('Dinosaurs', 'Dinosores'); --returns 4
Edit:
After hunting around a bit for a multi-text option, it seems that this isn't all that easy. I would refer you to the link on the Fuzzt Logic answer provided by #Neil Knight (+1 to that, for me!).
This stackoverflow article also details possible sources for implentations for Fuzzy Logic in TSQL. Once respondant also outlined Full text Indexing as a potential that you might want to investigate.
Perhaps your RDBMS has a SOUNDEX function? You didn't mention which one was involved here.
SQL Server's SOUNDEX
Just to throw an alternative out there. If SSIS is an option, then you can use Fuzzy Lookup.
SSIS Fuzzy Lookup
I'm not sure if introducing a separate "search engine" is possible, but if you look at products like the Google search appliance or Autonomy, these products can index a SQL database and provide more searching options - for example, handling misspellings as well as synonyms, search results weighting, alternative search recommendations, etc.
Also, SQL Server's full-text search feature can be configured to use a thesaurus, which might help:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142491.aspx
Here is another SO question from someone setting up a thesaurus to handle common misspellings:
FORMSOF Thesaurus in SQL Server
Short answer, there is nothing built in to most SQL engines that can do dictionary-based correction of "fat fingers". SoundEx does work as a tool to find words that would sound alike and thus correct for phonetic misspellings, but if the user typed in "Dinosars" missing the final U, or truly "fat-fingered" it and entered "Dinosayrs", SoundEx would not return an exact match.
Sounds like you want something on the level of Google Search's "Did you mean __?" feature. I can tell you that is not as simple as it looks. At a 10,000-foot level, the search engine would look at each of those keywords and see if it's in a "dictionary" of known "good" search terms. If it isn't, it uses an algorithm much like a spell-checker suggestion to find the dictionary word that is the closest match (requires the fewest letter substitutions, additions, deletions and transpositions to turn the given word into the dictionary word). This will require some heavy procedural code, either in a stored proc or CLR Db function in your database, or in your business logic layer.
You can also try the SubString(), to eliminate the first 3 or so characters . Below is an example of how that can be achieved
SELECT Fname, Lname
FROM Table1 ,Table2
WHERE substr(Table1.Fname, 1,3) || substr(Table1.Lname,1 ,3) = substr(Table2.Fname, 1,3) || substr(Table2.Lname, 1 , 3))
ORDER BY Table1.Fname;
I have this query:
select name, body
from news
where body like %MyWord%;
I use MySQL database engine. this query will return name, body when found MyWord in body text.
My problem here is that, when I search about two word in body text, like MyWord1 , MyWord2. or more !!!
How I can do that if you know that this query is calling by function (That I can not modify that query all time).
If you need more functionality on your text search patterns, you should use FULL-TEXT-SEARCH in MySQL with the proper indexes.
You will be able to search two or more words at once if that's what you are needing.
You could use some evil SQL-injection (kind of) :)
I assume you pass "MyWord" to the function that contains the query you can't ("can't" or "don't like to"??) change. What happens, if "MyWord" looks something like this:
MyWord1% OR body like %MyWord2
Evil, I know, you have been warned ;)
if you want to find two different words you can do this:
select name, body
from news
where body like %MyWord1% and body like %MyWord2%;
however, that will soon become very non-performant, and there are a number of other options you can look at:
using fulltext search, as suggested
by Pablo Santa Cruz (probably the
simplest to use)
parse your body field into a subtable via a trigger upon insert
search the data by populating a lucene/solr index and searching off of that (a bit more complicated to setup and maintain but the the performance is very impressive.
In my tests I suddenly bumped into a Too Many Clauses exception when trying to get the hits from a boolean query that consisted of a termquery and a wildcard query.
I searched around the net and on the found resources they suggest to increase the BooleanQuery.SetMaxClauseCount().
This sounds fishy to me.. To what should I up it? How can I rely that this new magic number will be sufficient for my query? How far can I increment this number before all hell breaks loose?
In general I feel this is not a solution. There must be a deeper problem..
The query was +{+companyName:mercedes +paintCode:a*} and the index has ~2.5M documents.
the paintCode:a* part of the query is a prefix query for any paintCode beginning with an "a". Is that what you're aiming for?
Lucene expands prefix queries into a boolean query containing all the possible terms that match the prefix. In your case, apparently there are more than 1024 possible paintCodes that begin with an "a".
If it sounds to you like prefix queries are useless, you're not far from the truth.
I would suggest you change your indexing scheme to avoid using a Prefix Query. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your example, but if you want to search for paint codes by first letter, make a paintCodeFirstLetter field and search by that field.
ADDED
If you're desperate, and are willing to accept partial results, you can build your own Lucene version from source. You need to make changes to the files PrefixQuery.java and MultiTermQuery.java, both under org/apache/lucene/search. In the rewrite method of both classes, change the line
query.add(tq, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD); // add to query
to
try {
query.add(tq, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD); // add to query
} catch (TooManyClauses e) {
break;
}
I did this for my own project and it works.
If you really don't like the idea of changing Lucene, you could write your own PrefixQuery variant and your own QueryParser, but I don't think it's much better.
It seems like you are using this on a field that is sort of a Keyword type (meaning there will not be multiple tokens in your data source field).
There is a suggestion here that seems pretty elegant to me: http://grokbase.com/t/lucene.apache.org/java-user/2007/11/substring-indexing-to-avoid-toomanyclauses-exception/12f7s7kzp2emktbn66tdmfpcxfya
The basic idea is to break down your term into multiple fields with increasing length until you are pretty sure you will not hit the clause limit.
Example:
Imagine a paintCode like this:
"a4c2d3"
When indexing this value, you create the following field values in your document:
[paintCode]: "a4c2d3"
[paintCode1n]: "a"
[paintCode2n]: "a4"
[paintCode3n]: "a4c"
By the time you query, the number of characters in your term decide which field to search on. This means that you will perform a prefix query only for terms with more of 3 characters, which greatly decreases the internal result count, preventing the infamous TooManyBooleanClausesException. Apparently this also speeds up the searching process.
You can easily automate a process that breaks down the terms automatically and fills the documents with values according to a name scheme during indexing.
Some issues may arise if you have multiple tokens for each field. You can find more details in the article