Noise

  • Aleksl-294755 (10/16/2012)


    I concur with kapil190588 that the version should somehow be mentioned.

    Please see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142551(v=sql.90).aspx - noise-word list (LIST!)

    Not NoiseList then? 😉

  • kapil_kk (10/15/2012)


    As sql server version was not specified so I selected NoiseList but got wrong...

    I think version should be mentioned in question..

    learn new thing today.......

    +1

  • Nice question!

    I would have gotten this wrong without some research. The name seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

  • I knew what they were, but I couldn't remember the nomenclature. So I popped open BOL and searched for noise words. Which took me to the stopwords area and then I didn't bother to read very hard (forgot coffee).

    Ah well... getting it wrong when you're on the right answer but too tired to read, gives you what you deserver I suppose.



    --Mark Tassin
    MCITP - SQL Server DBA
    Proud member of the Anti-RBAR alliance.
    For help with Performance click this link[/url]
    For tips on how to post your problems[/url]

  • Thanks Easy Question.

  • Bah humbug - by which you may take it that I had not kept up on this subject. I would have researched it if the version had been specified as I had not realised it was a change. I think including the version would have made it less 'trick'-y.

  • Aleksl-294755 (10/16/2012)


    I concur with kapil190588 that the version should somehow be mentioned.

    Please see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142551(v=sql.90).aspx - noise-word list (LIST!)

    Not the same thing, and it's not current terminology. If you were to talk to anyone today about FTS, Stop lists would be the term used, regardless of what was in place in 2005. That document also references noise word files, and noise word lists, not noise lists. I would say that based on my experience working with the versions, the "noise word list" is a typo in that documentation.

    We can't build questions that are completely backwards compatible.

  • Specifying the versions would be good because it's hard to tell years later which versions an old question was meant for.

  • Michael Valentine Jones (10/16/2012)


    Specifying the versions would be good because it's hard to tell years later which versions an old question was meant for.

    Hmm, that's a pretty good point actually.

    It makes sense to assume the current version of SQL Server with default settings for the current question, but that's something that could become unclear over time should older questions come up in a search (or if you are answering old questions in your spare time).

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/16/2012)


    ...

    We can't build questions that are completely backwards compatible.

    +1

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • Mention SQL version anyway!

  • Nice question, thanks!

    Need an answer? No, you need a question
    My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
    MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP

  • thanks for the explanation from all you guys..

    _______________________________________________________________
    To get quick answer follow this link:
    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/

  • good explanation

    _______________________________________________________________
    To get quick answer follow this link:
    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/

  • Thank you for the question, good to see one on full text indexing

    Iulian

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply