question about fulltext indexes

  • We are preparing to convert our CRM from an on-premises version to a cloud version.  One of the requirements we've gotten is to remove full text indexing.

    I removed the indexes and the catalog, but under sysfiles there is still a file named ftrow_ftcat_documentindex_<guid> - is there a way to safely drop this file from the database?  I assume it only contains information relevant to fulltext indexing?

  • Thanks for posting your issue and hopefully someone will answer soon.

    This is an automated bump to increase visibility of your question.

  • I don't know about your issue but I am interested in the "requirements".  Which cloud are you moving to and are you having to remove full-text indexing because they don't support or ???

    --Jeff Moden


    RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
    First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
    ________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

    Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.


    Helpful Links:
    How to post code problems
    How to Post Performance Problems
    Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

  • We are moving our on-prem instance of Microsoft Dynamics CRM to the cloud version - it's MS so basically Azure.  Our head developer gave me a list of things we need to do, and one of them is that the database cannot have fulltext indexes.

    To be honest I am not sure if it's just that they won't support it, or if it literally cannot be there.  I can ask for more information, but for now I'd just like to understand how (or if) we can drop that file if that is in fact a requirement.

  • Thank you.  It appears that Full Text Indexes have been available on Azure since 2015 so that's not the issue.  The probable issue is that all software on Azure is pretty much kept up to date.  That may include the Microsoft Dynamics CRM software.  If you're using something less than version 4.0, it turns out that the full text indexes created n version 3.0 are not compatible with version 4.0 and so they would have to be dropped and recreated.

    Shifting gears a bit, I believe that Microsoft Dynamics uses Random GUIDs for all index keys.  While I can't help you on your original question (I just don't know the answer because I don't use FTI),  I CAN seriously help you with the problem of "massive page splits and rampant fragmentation" on the indexes.  Since you might not believe me if I told you that you can go for months on even on a constantly inserted table just by making one small change in your index maintenance, please see the following 'tube where I destroy the decades old myth of Random GUID fragmentation and lay waste to what most of the world is currently using as supposed "Best Practices", which actually aren't a "Best Practice", were never mean to be a "Best Practice", and are actually a worst practice.  Serveral other related myths are also destroyed.

    Here's the link for the 'tube.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZwMNJxqVo

    I recommend that you watch it to the very end where I show the results of inserting 100 THOUSAND rows per day for 58 days with virtually no page splits, <1% logical fragmentation, and NO index maintenance until the 58th day.  That's 5.8 MILLION rows inserted into a clustered Random GUID index over the 58 days.

    Hopefully, someone will come along soon the help you with your Full Text Index issue.

    --Jeff Moden


    RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
    First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
    ________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

    Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.


    Helpful Links:
    How to post code problems
    How to Post Performance Problems
    Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

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