October 16, 2012 at 6:09 am
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? 😉
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
October 16, 2012 at 6:43 am
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
October 16, 2012 at 6:46 am
Nice question!
I would have gotten this wrong without some research. The name seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
October 16, 2012 at 6:46 am
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.
October 16, 2012 at 7:41 am
Thanks Easy Question.
October 16, 2012 at 7:56 am
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.
October 16, 2012 at 8:51 am
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.
October 16, 2012 at 9:11 am
Specifying the versions would be good because it's hard to tell years later which versions an old question was meant for.
October 16, 2012 at 9:16 am
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).
October 16, 2012 at 9:16 am
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
October 16, 2012 at 10:39 am
Mention SQL version anyway!
October 17, 2012 at 12:42 am
Nice question, thanks!
Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP
October 17, 2012 at 1:11 am
thanks for the explanation from all you guys..
_______________________________________________________________
To get quick answer follow this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
October 20, 2012 at 12:10 am
good explanation
_______________________________________________________________
To get quick answer follow this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
October 23, 2012 at 2:10 am
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