SQL Full Text Searching is, in all ways except ease of implementation,
better than Verity on a DB, including the new Verity K2 with CF5.
And since we're all in agreement that content should be stored in a DB, not
in files (right, Russ?), then SQL Server's Full Text Searching is the only
search solution to use if you're (un)lucky enough to be an MS shop.
That being said, K2 is *really* fast on searching files compared to 4.x's
VDK engine. Indexing is still slow though.
NAT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marsh, Jeffrey B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: URGENT ! fusebox model and site search
> Alan,
>
> Nat can back me up on this. We had many products, ships, promotions,
> locations, destinations, and other travel related data stored in a
database.
> We needed to allow users to search the data. At one point, we did consider
> making each of the database "objects" a static web page. But we already
had
> Verity employed searching the database. We re-indexed the collections
twice
> a day.
>
> Ultimately we ended up redesigning the search circuit to use SQL Server
full
> text searching. We got a tremendous performance boost and we were able to
> search the database the way we needed. Verity had a number of limiting
> factors for database searches - custom1 and custom2 fields, specifically.
>
> ---
> Jeffrey B. Marsh
> Professionals built the Titanic.
> Amateurs built the Ark.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McCollough, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:57 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: URGENT ! fusebox model and site search
>
> Thats the 2nd person to mention this. Do y'all really do db searches with
> Verity? That seems so weird to me, I mean when a SQL 'LIKE' statement does
> the same job...
>
> Consider this: Undeniably, the Verity engine provided with CF (version 5
> notwithstanding) is so terse in its text analysis that if you do a search
> for "Mississippi", you better know how to spell it. Now imagine this; I
work
> in a hospital. There are some flat out bizarre words that go along with
the
> business. If the search engine is too uptight, folks don't get the good
> search results they expect, and indeed assume should be there. That's why
I
> like dtSearch.
>
> If I decided to search for db content with Verity, I'd use Verity for that
> purpose exclusively. I'd use something different for text document
searches.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Smith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:47 PM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: URGENT ! fusebox model and site search
> >
> > I see the website talks about desktop databases, but not SQL Server
> > A search of the website for "SQL Server" turned up 0 hits.
> >
> > So am I right in assuming dtsearch doesn't play nice with SQL Server 7
and
> >
> > the ilk?
> >
> > best, paul
> >
> > At 08:24 AM 5/30/01 -0800, you wrote:
> > >That one feature alone made it
> > >worth the bucks. Which would be $999 retail, from www.dtsearch.com ...
> > And I
> > >ain't no paid spokesman, just a happy user.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
