Hi!

I'd like to know if it's possible to use Google APIs to make a text
search into DBs such Oracle or Sql Server.

Thanks!

Do not use SQL for text and document searching; get a tool built for
this job. If you are doing this only once, then yhou can use whatever
your RDBMS product has for strings.

Are you trying to expose the content in your database out to the ouside
world so its indexed via google?

If so, you can create a 'site map' in google - search google for this, but
you are in control of what is exposed and basically all you are doing is
linking to a page that gives up the text so that google can index it.

If you are looking for the ability to do text search on your database data
with-in your application, with Microsoft SQL Server you have the full-text
search which is built-into the engine and you can use directly in your
queries using CONTAINS / CONTAINSTABLE / FREETEXT and FREETEXTTABLE.

Tony.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


<silvia.fama (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote

The trend, certainly within the Microsoft space is to use SQL to query
non-structred data that offers a standard language people can use, most
developers know SQL which is why they have taken that direction, you may
also want to google the LINQ project which is even more exciting.

SQL is quite definitely not and should not imho be limited to query
relational data as definied by a 'rdbms'.

As somebody who supports standards I would have thought you'd appreciate the
'standard' interface to 'data' be it relational or non-structured.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"--CELKO--" <jcelko212 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

I would say that Microsoft is trying to lock people into their products
and their proprietary tools, not a love of standards.

The developers who work with text are not SQL programmers; they have a
whole different mindset. Our mindset is strongly valued logic and
syntax rules; they have fuzzy logics and semantics. Knowledge
management journals are nothings like TODS and SigMod journals. Etc.

What else should a *RELATIONAL DATA base system" do besides , well,
relational data? List processing? Symbolic Algebra? Semantic info
processing? Graph structures? Chop tomatoes? The Swiss Army Knife
school of software!

I do. The de jure standards for text searching were set up by NISO,
and the de facto ones by Lexus, Nexis, WestLaw and Google.

Or, trying to make life easier for the developer so the developer doesn't
have to learn lots of new languages/techniques.

Totally agree, however, that does not mean that we can't have a flavour of
SQL to query the catalogues that where built using those techniques and it
is always good to get a SET of data back that I can easily join into my
relational tables without having to export the data out using one interface,
import it back in, do some formatting and use a cursor to compare.

You really ought to actually try and use some of these technologies together
and you'll understand a bit more, basically - get some experience before you
start spouting out your theory.

I deliberately did not say "RELATIONAL DATA base system" because SQL Server
is a lot more, in fact the storage of data in a relational form is just a
small part now.

There are very few "RDBMS" products left because their makers realised they
had to adapt to the changing environment and challenges developers face and
a product that just stores and retrieves data is just no good any more - you
only need to look at which products are the market leaders and what they
offer.

Google? Yes, google has an API, so does MSN Search - WebServices.

Check CONTAINSTABLE in books online and you'll see how SQL Server implements
these standards.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"--CELKO--" <jcelko212 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

Tony Rogerson wrote:

Agreed. Microsoft SQL Server is overdue for a rename. I guess the
product class is really "Information Process Engine" - covering the
whole gamut of storage, analysis, messaging, integration, BI.


More accurately, there are virtually NO relational database products at
all because the market is dominated by SQL, which is non-relational (or
maybe "pseudo-relational" if you insist).

To pick on the point you made earlier, it is very misleading to say
that document search is "non-relational" or that free-text data is not
relational data because it is "non-structured". In fact that
misconception seems to be to behind a lot of misguided marketing and
trendy opinion. There is no fundamental reason why you can't store
documents in a relational database, it's just that SQL DBMSs haven't
always provided good support for it in the form of text search
features. SQL still defines the limits of what most people think of as
RDBMS.

By the way I aggree that LINQ has some laudable aims but DLINQ is too
bound up in the legacy of SQL. DLINQ is a massive compromise in fact,
but maybe all that is possible within the framework of existing
systems.

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/m...S,SQL.90).aspx
--