|
|
Posted by Don Li on 11/29/07 01:33
Erland, please see my embedded comments/further questions below.
Thanks.
Don
On Nov 28, 2:29 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.se> wrote:
> Don Li (tatata9...@gmail.com) writes:
> > I've added a non-clustered index to the targetTBl(article_content,
> > article_id),
> > article_content is varchar(896) and article_id is int. On collation
> > for article_content, it uses "database default", which is SQL_Latin1.
>
> OK, there are some spetacular differences between SQL collations + varchar
> and Windows collations or anything with nvarchar with that type of query.
Don't really follow you here, could you elaborate a bit further on the
collations topic?
>
> > However, the scan is still taking too long, insertion of about 12
> > rows took about 7000ms. And I even added index hint. It's odd though
> > yesterday and the day before yesterday, the same query ran at least
> > 100% faster.
>
> But it's not really the insertion that takes time, is it? I mean, if you
> the SELECT alone, it does not respond in 70 milliseconds, does it?
Yeah, the SELECT, table scan thing sucks.
>
> Have you considered using full-text indexing?
I'm using another technique for text data search, looks superior to
full-text indexing.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|