Re: Re: Re: CLOB search

2019-05-10 Thread LJ LongWing 
ahmy historical recollection of the when/why of FTS being included was
wrong then :)

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:12 AM Adams, Peter  wrote:

> In general, it’s pricing model dependent.
>
>
>
> However, I should have qualified my earlier statement: the “no extra cost”
> in the newer pricing models applies only, if you are on versions 7.6.03 or
> higher, which hopefully everyone is.
>
> Has nothing to do with Hub & Spoke. If you recall, in 7.6.03 we made a
> change in technology around FTS – moving to Lucene.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ARSList  on behalf of LJ LongWing <
> lj.longw...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *ARSList 
> *Date: *Friday, May 10, 2019 at 6:55 AM
> *To: *ARSList 
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Re: CLOB search
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Thank you for thatI thought that the FTS got included with the
> specific version of Remedy where 'Hub and Spoke' model was
> introducedthanks for the clarification.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:47 AM Adams, Peter  wrote:
>
> About FTS pricing:
>
>
>
> That depends on the pricing model that you’re using to license Remedy.
>
> The vast majority of our customers are on one of solution pricing models
> that were first introduced in 2007. For those customers, FTS is no extra
> cost.
>
> Only the few customers that remain on the very original pricing model for
> Remedy – sometimes referred to as “green pricing” – would have to purchase
> separate licenses for FTS.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ARSList  on behalf of Thomas
> Miskiewicz 
> *Reply-To: *ARSList 
> *Date: *Friday, May 10, 2019 at 6:30 AM
> *To: *ARSList 
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: CLOB search
>
>
>
> Does FTS cost extra? What’s the downside/ drawbacks?
>
>
> On 10. May 2019, at 15:25, LJ LongWing  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 possibleadding 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 youbut 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 
> wrote:
>
> Is FTS avoidable?
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2019, at 3:03 PM, LJ LongWing  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 
> 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
>
-- 
ARSList mailing list
ARSList@arslist.org
https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist

Re: Re: Re: CLOB search

2019-05-10 Thread Adams, Peter 
In general, it’s pricing model dependent.

However, I should have qualified my earlier statement: the “no extra cost” in 
the newer pricing models applies only, if you are on versions 7.6.03 or higher, 
which hopefully everyone is.
Has nothing to do with Hub & Spoke. If you recall, in 7.6.03 we made a change 
in technology around FTS – moving to Lucene.

Peter


From: ARSList  on behalf of LJ LongWing 

Reply-To: ARSList 
Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 at 6:55 AM
To: ARSList 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: CLOB search

Peter,
Thank you for thatI thought that the FTS got included with the specific 
version of Remedy where 'Hub and Spoke' model was introducedthanks for the 
clarification.

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:47 AM Adams, Peter 
mailto:peter_ad...@bmc.com>> wrote:
About FTS pricing:

That depends on the pricing model that you’re using to license Remedy.
The vast majority of our customers are on one of solution pricing models that 
were first introduced in 2007. For those customers, FTS is no extra cost.
Only the few customers that remain on the very original pricing model for 
Remedy – sometimes referred to as “green pricing” – would have to purchase 
separate licenses for FTS.

Peter


From: ARSList mailto:arslist-boun...@arslist.org>> 
on behalf of Thomas Miskiewicz mailto:tmisk...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: ARSList mailto:arslist@arslist.org>>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 at 6:30 AM
To: ARSList mailto:arslist@arslist.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CLOB search

Does FTS cost extra? What’s the downside/ drawbacks?

On 10. May 2019, at 15:25, LJ LongWing 
mailto: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 possibleadding 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 youbut 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 
mailto:tmisk...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Is FTS avoidable?

On May 10, 2019, at 3:03 PM, LJ LongWing 
mailto: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 
mailto: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