Hillary's Searchpage.htm

I've started to use the code within searchpage and am having trouble with
Noisewords at the beginning and end of the search phrase.
For example:
When I specify "Bill and any Manager" the result is "Bill Manager".
When I specify "any Manager and Bill" the result is "any Manager Bill".
I use a script to put "AND" between each word in the phrase so that it can
be queried using CONTAINS.
The first instance
SELECT* from T WHERE CONTAINS(*,' "Bill" AND "Manager"') works fine.
The second instance
SELECT * from T WHERE CONTAINS(*,' "any" AND "Manager" AND "Bill" ') causes
an error - Execution of a full-text operation failed. A clause of the query
contained only ignored words.
Is there a version of the Searchpage.htm script that eliminates noisewords
at the beginning of the search phrase and also at the end?
Thanks,
Richard
Richards,
While I don't speak for Hilary and his Searchpage.htm code, you might also
want to review the following KB article: 246800 (Q246800) "INF: Correctly
Parsing Quotation Marks in FTS Queries" at
http://support.microsoft.com//defaul...b;EN-US;246800 for coding
examples (VBScript & JScript) on how to eliminate noise words from the
user's search string that is passed to SQL Server and your CONTAINS clause.
Basically, you can use client-side code to eliminate all noise words from
being passed to SQL Server FTS or use quotes to put the noise words in
"phrases" where they are truly ignored.
Regards,
John
"Richard French" <rf@.frenchfamily.net> wrote in message
news:BCDD12D0.3CF%rf@.frenchfamily.net...
> I've started to use the code within searchpage and am having trouble with
> Noisewords at the beginning and end of the search phrase.
> For example:
> When I specify "Bill and any Manager" the result is "Bill Manager".
> When I specify "any Manager and Bill" the result is "any Manager Bill".
> I use a script to put "AND" between each word in the phrase so that it can
> be queried using CONTAINS.
> The first instance
> SELECT* from T WHERE CONTAINS(*,' "Bill" AND "Manager"') works fine.
> The second instance
> SELECT * from T WHERE CONTAINS(*,' "any" AND "Manager" AND "Bill" ')
causes
> an error - Execution of a full-text operation failed. A clause of the
query
> contained only ignored words.
> Is there a version of the Searchpage.htm script that eliminates noisewords
> at the beginning of the search phrase and also at the end?
> Thanks,
> Richard
>

Hilary's new replication book

To Hilary: I've been eagerly awaiting your new book on SQL
Replication that had been scheduled for April publication.
Any idea when it will become available? Thanks!
http://www.nwsu.com/forthcoming.html
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
I'm not sure if I will be hitting the June ship date, but it will be soon
after that. I'll let you know. I had a disagreement with Apress and decided
not to go with them. I don't know why they claim they are still publishing
it or why they claim an April print date.
"fundster" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8e3c01c432c8$e6fbdbd0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> To Hilary: I've been eagerly awaiting your new book on SQL
> Replication that had been scheduled for April publication.
> Any idea when it will become available? Thanks!
|||And to increase the goodwill in the world, Hilary will be
providing, free of charge, all posters in this newsgroup
with signed copies.....:-)
|||Yes, I am very excited to be able to freely distribute these volumes, and I
am even more excited that Paul has agreed to pick up the tab
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:8f6801c43345$a077eaf0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> And to increase the goodwill in the world, Hilary will be
> providing, free of charge, all posters in this newsgroup
> with signed copies.....:-)
|||I will gladly pay for mine (signed of course). You have been a great source
of knowledge, help for me, Hillary. I will like to take the sopportunity to
say thank you and congratulate you.
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:OpsLcX1MEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I am very excited to be able to freely distribute these volumes, and
I
> am even more excited that Paul has agreed to pick up the tab
> "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
> news:8f6801c43345$a077eaf0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>

High Memory Usage by SQL 2000

Hi,
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Barak
Barak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Chief Tenaya is correct and gave you some good references. You should also
take a look at 321363 INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321363.
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

High Memory Usage by SQL 2000

Hi,
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Barak
Barak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>