FT Index on column with multiple language doesn't work - any ideas

Hi all,
I have a table on SQL Server 2005 with a column (collation
SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) that can contain multiple languages. Some of
the possible languages include English, German, French, Kazakh, Arabic,
Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc.
I tried querying for documents that contains 台灣 (meaning "Taiwan" in
Simplified Chinese), but it is not working as I expected.
I ran the following query:
select * from tblDocuments
where CONTAINS(DocumentTitle, '台灣', LANGUAGE 'Traditional Chinese')
With the English language breaker, I get 0 results.
With the Traditional Chinese language breaker, I get 1 result and it is the
document I was looking for.
I would've expected the LANGUAGE keyword to ignore the default language
breaker and use whatever is specified, but apparently I'm missing
something... maybe table setup or whatnot.
Any ideas would be greatly appreaciated.
Cheers,
Andry
This is correct behavior. When the document is indexed and you are
specifying the English word breaker it interprets the contents of the row to
be English words, unless you are using the xml language tags and specify
that the XML doc is in Chinese and that you are using the XML data type, or
you are using Word and marked that passage containing the character as
Chinese, or the language settings for your Word document are Chinese, or you
are using html and have set the ms.locale to Chinese and set the correct
code page. With Word Docs and HTML docs you must save them in the image or
varbinary data type columns and use a document type column with the
extension the document would have if it was stored in the file system.
If you don't follow the above the Chinese character will be interpreted as a
Unicode sequence which will not be interpreted correctly in your queries.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Andry" <Andry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:569E9782-47E3-4657-AC68-7787214D3D97@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a table on SQL Server 2005 with a column (collation
> SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) that can contain multiple languages. Some of
> the possible languages include English, German, French, Kazakh, Arabic,
> Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc.
> I tried querying for documents that contains ? (meaning "Taiwan" in
> Simplified Chinese), but it is not working as I expected.
> I ran the following query:
> select * from tblDocuments
> where CONTAINS(DocumentTitle, '?', LANGUAGE 'Traditional Chinese')
> With the English language breaker, I get 0 results.
> With the Traditional Chinese language breaker, I get 1 result and it is
> the
> document I was looking for.
> I would've expected the LANGUAGE keyword to ignore the default language
> breaker and use whatever is specified, but apparently I'm missing
> something... maybe table setup or whatnot.
> Any ideas would be greatly appreaciated.
> Cheers,
> Andry

Freeze Panes

I have created some reports in RS that contain alot of information. The problem I have is that at the top of the list it is fine, but when you start to Drill Down and then scroll down the list, the column titles disappear.

So the question is, how can I freeze the horizontal and vertical panes, or should I say, can I freeze those panes?

Regards

You can accomplish this within a Table. Include all the info that you want to stay on the screen in the Table Header and set the FixedHeader property to False. Then when you scroll down, the table header remains at the top.

You will probalby want to change the background color from transparent to either white or some other collor, because otherwise you will see both the header and the data underneath.

|||

Note: the FixedHeader feature is only available in RS 2005. You can use it in tables and in matrix.

-- Robert

Freeing Space after Deleting Rows

I deleted some records that contain blob data from a table
but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no effect.
Should I truncate the table to release the space?
Truncate will delete all records and that's not what is
expected.
Please give me your suggestions.
Thanks...
Stokowhat do you mean when you say 'physical disk space'? Are you talking about
OS level space at the file system level, or space reported by SQL as being
consumed by the table. Can you list exactly what output you're looking at?
It wasn't 100% clear to me from your message...
--
Brian
"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:05cf01c3fadf$2111ede0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a table
> but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no effect.
> Should I truncate the table to release the space?
> Truncate will delete all records and that's not what is
> expected.
> Please give me your suggestions.
> Thanks...
> Stoko|||I am sorry for the lack of details.
I was expecting that after deleting a blob record holding
723556kb of file, this space should be released to the os
level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free space, I
should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't the case --
even at sql sever level, the space is still not released.
I appreciate your immediate response.
Stoko
>--Original Message--
>what do you mean when you say 'physical disk space'? Are
you talking about
>OS level space at the file system level, or space
reported by SQL as being
>consumed by the table. Can you list exactly what output
you're looking at?
>It wasn't 100% clear to me from your message...
>--
>Brian
>
>"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:05cf01c3fadf$2111ede0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
table
>> but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
>> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
>> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
effect.
>> Should I truncate the table to release the space?
>> Truncate will delete all records and that's not what is
>> expected.
>> Please give me your suggestions.
>> Thanks...
>> Stoko
>
>.
>|||take a look at dbcc shrinkfile.
Files are not shrunk as space is remove from them. This is by design since
it would create a huge performance problem...
--
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:079801c3fae2$f1c7ec70$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am sorry for the lack of details.
> I was expecting that after deleting a blob record holding
> 723556kb of file, this space should be released to the os
> level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free space, I
> should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't the case --
> even at sql sever level, the space is still not released.
> I appreciate your immediate response.
> Stoko
> >--Original Message--
> >what do you mean when you say 'physical disk space'? Are
> you talking about
> >OS level space at the file system level, or space
> reported by SQL as being
> >consumed by the table. Can you list exactly what output
> you're looking at?
> >It wasn't 100% clear to me from your message...
> >
> >--
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:05cf01c3fadf$2111ede0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
> table
> >> but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
> >> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
> >> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
> effect.
> >>
> >> Should I truncate the table to release the space?
> >> Truncate will delete all records and that's not what is
> >> expected.
> >>
> >> Please give me your suggestions.
> >> Thanks...
> >> Stoko
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Freeing space after deleting records.

I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
table but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
effect.
Should I truncate the table to release the space? Truncate
will delete all records and that's not what is
expected.
I was expecting that after deleting the blob record
holding 723556kb of file, this space should be released to
the os level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free
space, I should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't
the case -- even at sql sever level, the space is still
not released.
I appreciate your immediate response.
StokoCheck back in the archives, a few weeks. There was some discussion about the
same topic and if my memory serves me, to free space for blobs, you need to
re.load the table. I'm not sure about the details, so, I suggest you check
the archives to make sure.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:077501c3faf2$b2fdc130$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
> table but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
> effect.
> Should I truncate the table to release the space? Truncate
> will delete all records and that's not what is
> expected.
> I was expecting that after deleting the blob record
> holding 723556kb of file, this space should be released to
> the os level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free
> space, I should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't
> the case -- even at sql sever level, the space is still
> not released.
> I appreciate your immediate response.
> Stoko
>|||Hi,
Execute the below commands
sp_spaceused table_name,@.updateusage ='TRUE'
go
Update statistics table_name
After this check the space utilized by the table and then use DBCC
SHRINKFILE to shrink the physical file.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:077501c3faf2$b2fdc130$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
> table but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
> effect.
> Should I truncate the table to release the space? Truncate
> will delete all records and that's not what is
> expected.
> I was expecting that after deleting the blob record
> holding 723556kb of file, this space should be released to
> the os level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free
> space, I should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't
> the case -- even at sql sever level, the space is still
> not released.
> I appreciate your immediate response.
> Stoko
>

Freeing space after deleting records.

I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
table but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
effect.
Should I truncate the table to release the space? Truncate
will delete all records and that's not what is
expected.
I was expecting that after deleting the blob record
holding 723556kb of file, this space should be released to
the os level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free
space, I should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't
the case -- even at sql sever level, the space is still
not released.
I appreciate your immediate response.
StokoCheck back in the archives, a few weeks. There was some discussion about the
same topic and if my memory serves me, to free space for blobs, you need to
re.load the table. I'm not sure about the details, so, I suggest you check
the archives to make sure.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ublic.sqlserver
"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:077501c3faf2$b2fdc130$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
> table but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
> effect.
> Should I truncate the table to release the space? Truncate
> will delete all records and that's not what is
> expected.
> I was expecting that after deleting the blob record
> holding 723556kb of file, this space should be released to
> the os level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free
> space, I should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't
> the case -- even at sql sever level, the space is still
> not released.
> I appreciate your immediate response.
> Stoko
>|||Hi,
Execute the below commands
sp_spaceused table_name,@.updateusage ='TRUE'
go
Update statistics table_name
After this check the space utilized by the table and then use DBCC
SHRINKFILE to shrink the physical file.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"stoko" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:077501c3faf2$b2fdc130$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I deleted some records that contain blob data from a
> table but realized no effect to my physical disk space.
> Shrinking the table and/or database returned no positive
> impact. executed sp_spaceused on the table with no
> effect.
> Should I truncate the table to release the space? Truncate
> will delete all records and that's not what is
> expected.
> I was expecting that after deleting the blob record
> holding 723556kb of file, this space should be released to
> the os level of my server. hence if I had 2gigs of free
> space, I should now have at least 2.7 gigs. This wasn't
> the case -- even at sql sever level, the space is still
> not released.
> I appreciate your immediate response.
> Stoko
>