if you are on a modern version (9.x I know for sure, maybe even 8.1.02, but not 100% sure on that one) FTS is included with Remedy server...so, no extra monetary cost....the cost you will bear is that of hard disk space....depending on what all you have that's currently set to be indexed, your fts collections directory can get quite large (several hundred gig in large installations). I have a tool that'll give you an output that tells you everything that's currently set to be indexed ( http://remedylegacy.com/tools/fts-index/ ) and even provides a bulk option to turn off any/all of those indexes....BMC has an article that contains some sql scripts that you can run that'll guestimate how much space will be taken by enabling fts ( https://communities.bmc.com/docs/DOC-49700 )...so, between the two you should be able to reasonably understand the impact of enabling FTS on your server....other than the resources necessary to store and maintain the indexes, the overall impact should be positive in your situation.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:30 AM Thomas Miskiewicz <tmisk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does FTS cost extra? What’s the downside/ drawbacks? > > On 10. May 2019, at 15:25, LJ LongWing <lj.longw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you have a CLOB, performance of searches is going to suck if doing it > directly at the DB level, if it's even possible....adding FTS to the field > indexes the field with a lucene index (FTS flat file), and a query against > that field doesn't go to the DB, instead it does the flatfile index search, > which is significantly more efficient and quicker than a db search.... > > So...yes it's avoidable if you don't want to take advantage of the things > that fts gives you....but your options of improving the effort with the DB > when searching a CLOB are very limited... > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:07 AM Thomas Miskiewicz <tmisk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Is FTS avoidable? >> >> On May 10, 2019, at 3:03 PM, LJ LongWing <lj.longw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Would FTS help you in any way? I know it would help, but the question is >> are you willing to make that change. >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:53 AM Thomas Miskiewicz <tmisk...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> we had to increase the size of a char field to over 4000 with huge >>> performance degradation when using this field for search. >>> >>> Does anyone know how to heal this? Would the Oracle 12 Text Option help? >>> >>> >>> Thomas >>> -- >>> ARSList mailing list >>> ARSList@arslist.org >>> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >>> >> -- >> ARSList mailing list >> ARSList@arslist.org >> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >> >> >> -- >> ARSList mailing list >> ARSList@arslist.org >> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >> > -- > ARSList mailing list > ARSList@arslist.org > https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist > > -- > ARSList mailing list > ARSList@arslist.org > https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >
-- ARSList mailing list ARSList@arslist.org https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
