Below you see my query. The parameter
'ISABOUT("Windsor Col*" WEIGHT(1.0),"Windsor Col" WEIGHT(0.7),"Windsor*" WEIGHT(0.5),"Col*" WEIGHT(0.5))'
is actually passed in to a stored function that has the same code. This is for autocomplete, and this query is made when the user types "Windsor Col". What's curious though, is why "Windsor Colorado United States" isn't on the top of the list.
Anyone have a fresh pair of eyes that can spot the mistake I'm making? Also, if you have any other suggestions, feel free to comment. I want the user search experience to be as natural and obvious as possible.
EDIT: The first select (Landmarks) searches against the Name column and the second select (Cities) searches against the Extended column.
In Sql Server the rank returned from CONTAINSTABLE is only applicable to the results returned in that particular FT query. In other words comparing the rank from two different CONTAINSTABLE queries is meaningless (even though the text of the query may be the same they are hitting different columns).
Related
I have SSRS report that uses a query that searches for specific text in the Where clause. I know using IDs is the preferred method of filtering data down, but this table only makes use of varchar strings...Very long strings I might add.
There are 5 different varchar strings that the query searches for. The strings are static, so there will be no change in the string text (Thankfully). The query itself is very straightforward. I know using wildcards would affect performance for the worse. I did some research and it seems like there's not much I can do. Before I give up, I was hoping the smart folks at Stackoverflow may have an idea of what I could do to optimize the query.
SELECT * FROM
Reviews
WHERE ReviewFieldOption = 'The student displayed proficient knowledge of the material provided over the semester'
For your query, you want in index on ReviewFieldOption.
This works for strings, even long strings -- assuming they are not tooooo long. There are some limits on the size of keys in an index.
I'm reading "Tsql Fundamental" by Ben Itzik.
The author briefly mentioned that we shouldn't manipulate the filtered column if we want to use index efficiently. But he didn't really go into detail as to why this is the case.
So could someone please kindly explain the reason behind it?
The author briefly mentioned that we shouldn't manipulate the filtered column if we want to use index efficiently
What author mentions is called SARGABILITY.
Assume this statement
select * from t1 where name='abc'
Assume,you have an index on above filtered column
,then the query is Sargable
But not below one
select * from t1 where len(name)=3
When SQL is presented with above query,the only way ,it can filter out the data is to scan the table and then apply predicate to each row
Think of an index as being like a telephone directory (hopefully that's still a familiar enough concept) where everyone is listed by their surnames followed by their addresses.
This index is useful if you want to locate someone's phone number and you know their surname (and maybe their address).
But what if you want to locate everyone who (to steal TheGameiswar's example) has a 3 letter surname - is the index useful to you? It may be slightly more useful than having to go and visit every house in town1, but it's not nearly so efficient as being able to just jump to the appropriate surnames. You have to search the entire book.
Similarly, if you want to locate everyone who lives on a particular street, the index isn't so useful2 - you have to search through the entire book to make sure you've found everyone. Or to locate everyone whose surname ends with Son, etc.
1This is the analogy for when a database may choose to perform an index scan to satisfy a query simply because the index is smaller and so is easier than a full table scan.
2This is the analogy for a query that isn't attempting to filter on the left-most column in the index.
WHERE clause in a SQL query use predicates to filter the rows. Predicate is an expression, that determines whether an argument applied on a database object is true or false. Example : "Salary > 5000".
Relational models use predicates as a core element in filtering the data. These predicates should be written in certain form known as "Search Arguments" in order for the query optimizer to use the indexes effectively on the attributes used in the WHERE clause to filter data.
A predicate in the form - "column - operator - value" or "value - operator - column" is considered an appropriate search argument. Example - Salary = 1000 or Salary > 5000. As you can see, the column name should appear ALONE on one side of the expression and the constant or calculated value should be on the other side to form a valid search argument. The moment a built-in function like MAX , MIN, DATEADD or DATEDIFF etc was used on the column name, the expression is no longer treated as a search argument and the query optimizer won't use the indexes on those column names.
I hope this is clear.
I suppose I have always naively assumed that scalar functions in the select part of a SQL query will only get applied to the rows that meet all the criteria of the where clause.
Today I was debugging some code from a vendor and had that assumption challenged. The only reason I can think of for this code failing is that the Substring() function is getting called on data that should have been filtered out by the WHERE clause. But it appears that the substring call is being applied before the filtering happens, the query is failing.
Here is an example of what I mean. Let's say we have two tables, each with 2 columns and having 2 rows and 1 row respectively. The first column in each is just an id. NAME is just a string, and NAME_LENGTH tells us how many characters in the name with the same ID. Note that only names with more than one character have a corresponding row in the LONG_NAMES table.
NAMES: ID, NAME
1, "Peter"
2, "X"
LONG_NAMES: ID, NAME_LENGTH
1, 5
If I want a query to print each name with the last 3 letters cut off, I might first try something like this (assuming SQL Server syntax for now):
SELECT substring(NAME,1,len(NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES;
I would soon find out that this would give me an error, because when it reaches "X" it will try using a negative number for in the substring call, and it will fail.
The way my vendor decided to solve this was by filtering out rows where the strings were too short for the len - 3 query to work. He did it by joining to another table:
SELECT substring(NAMES.NAME,1,len(NAMES.NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES
INNER JOIN LONG_NAMES
ON NAMES.ID = LONG_NAMES.ID;
At first glance, this query looks like it might work. The join condition will eliminate any rows that have NAME fields short enough for the substring call to fail.
However, from what I can observe, SQL Server will sometimes try to calculate the the substring expression for everything in the table, and then apply the join to filter out rows. Is this supposed to happen this way? Is there a documented order of operations where I can find out when certain things will happen? Is it specific to a particular Database engine or part of the SQL standard? If I decided to include some predicate on my NAMES table to filter out short names, (like len(NAME) > 3), could SQL Server also choose to apply that after trying to apply the substring? If so then it seems the only safe way to do a substring would be to wrap it in a "case when" construct in the select?
Martin gave this link that pretty much explains what is going on - the query optimizer has free rein to reorder things however it likes. I am including this as an answer so I can accept something. Martin, if you create an answer with your link in it i will gladly accept that instead of this one.
I do want to leave my question here because I think it is a tricky one to search for, and my particular phrasing of the issue may be easier for someone else to find in the future.
TSQL divide by zero encountered despite no columns containing 0
EDIT: As more responses have come in, I am again confused. It does not seem clear yet when exactly the optimizer is allowed to evaluate things in the select clause. I guess I'll have to go find the SQL standard myself and see if i can make sense of it.
Joe Celko, who helped write early SQL standards, has posted something similar to this several times in various USENET newsfroups. (I'm skipping over the clauses that don't apply to your SELECT statement.) He usually said something like "This is how statements are supposed to act like they work". In other words, SQL implementations should behave exactly as if they did these steps, without actually being required to do each of these steps.
Build a working table from all of
the table constructors in the FROM
clause.
Remove from the working table those
rows that do not satisfy the WHERE
clause.
Construct the expressions in the
SELECT clause against the working table.
So, following this, no SQL dbms should act like it evaluates functions in the SELECT clause before it acts like it applies the WHERE clause.
In a recent posting, Joe expands the steps to include CTEs.
CJ Date and Hugh Darwen say essentially the same thing in chapter 11 ("Table Expressions") of their book A Guide to the SQL Standard. They also note that this chapter corresponds to the "Query Specification" section (sections?) in the SQL standards.
You are thinking about something called query execution plan. It's based on query optimization rules, indexes, temporaty buffers and execution time statistics. If you are using SQL Managment Studio you have toolbox over your query editor where you can look at estimated execution plan, it shows how your query will change to gain some speed. So if just used your Name table and it is in buffer, engine might first try to subquery your data, and then join it with other table.
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'm looking for a pattern for performing a dynamic search on multiple tables.
I have no control over the legacy (and poorly designed) database table structure.
Consider a scenario similar to a resume search where a user may want to perform a search against any of the data in the resume and get back a list of resumes that match their search criteria. Any field can be searched at anytime and in combination with one or more other fields.
The actual sql query gets created dynamically depending on which fields are searched. Most solutions I've found involve complicated if blocks, but I can't help but think there must be a more elegant solution since this must be a solved problem by now.
Yeah, so I've started down the path of dynamically building the sql in code. Seems godawful. If I really try to support the requested ability to query any combination of any field in any table this is going to be one MASSIVE set of if statements. shiver
I believe I read that COALESCE only works if your data does not contain NULLs. Is that correct? If so, no go, since I have NULL values all over the place.
As far as I understand (and I'm also someone who has written against a horrible legacy database), there is no such thing as dynamic WHERE clauses. It has NOT been solved.
Personally, I prefer to generate my dynamic searches in code. Makes testing convenient. Note, when you create your sql queries in code, don't concatenate in user input. Use your #variables!
The only alternative is to use the COALESCE operator. Let's say you have the following table:
Users
-----------
Name nvarchar(20)
Nickname nvarchar(10)
and you want to search optionally for name or nickname. The following query will do this:
SELECT Name, Nickname
FROM Users
WHERE
Name = COALESCE(#name, Name) AND
Nickname = COALESCE(#nick, Nickname)
If you don't want to search for something, just pass in a null. For example, passing in "brian" for #name and null for #nick results in the following query being evaluated:
SELECT Name, Nickname
FROM Users
WHERE
Name = 'brian' AND
Nickname = Nickname
The coalesce operator turns the null into an identity evaluation, which is always true and doesn't affect the where clause.
Search and normalization can be at odds with each other. So probably first thing would be to get some kind of "view" that shows all the fields that can be searched as a single row with a single key getting you the resume. then you can throw something like Lucene in front of that to give you a full text index of those rows, the way that works is, you ask it for "x" in this view and it returns to you the key. Its a great solution and come recommended by joel himself on the podcast within the first 2 months IIRC.
What you need is something like SphinxSearch (for MySQL) or Apache Lucene.
As you said in your example lets imagine a Resume that will composed of several fields:
List item
Name,
Adreess,
Education (this could be a table on its own) or
Work experience (this could grow to its own table where each row represents a previous job)
So searching for a word in all those fields with WHERE rapidly becomes a very long query with several JOINS.
Instead you could change your framework of reference and think of the Whole resume as what it is a Single Document and you just want to search said document.
This is where tools like Sphinx Search do. They create a FULL TEXT index of your 'document' and then you can query sphinx and it will give you back where in the Database that record was found.
Really good search results.
Don't worry about this tools not being part of your RDBMS it will save you a lot of headaches to use the appropriate model "Documents" vs the incorrect one "TABLES" for this application.