T-SQL – Full-Text Search by First Word

Here are three suggestions.

Suggestion 1. Use plainto_tsquery when you convert the user provided search string to PostgreSQL's tsquery, see the PostgreSQL docs. — I think that plainto_tsquery discards any special magical characters + AND, OR etcetera. (But I'm not completely sure. You'd better verify this so you don't do anything dangerous) Oops I didn't notice that this was about SQL Server not PostgreSQL.

Suggestion 2. Build a HTML form for advanced search queries, with fields like:

Include all these words: ...
Include any of these words: ...
Exclude all these ...

And so on. Next, construct the otherwise dangerous full text search expression yourself in SQL Server syntax.

Suggestion 3. You could provide a single search text field, and let e.g. "-someword" mean that "someword" should be excluded, and "+anotherword" mean that "anotherword" must be included. Then, you build your own parser for this search field, and convert the resulting "abstract search tree" to something SQL Server understands, and give it to SQL Server.

Questionable use case

...each CONTENT entry consists of one random word and a text string that is the same for all rows.

A text string that is the same for all rows is just dead freight. Remove it and concatenate it in a view if you need to show it.

Obviously, you are aware of that:

Granted, it is not realistic ... But since I can't control the text ...

Upgrade your Postgres version

Running PostgreSQL 9.3.4

While still on Postgres 9.3, you should at least upgrade to the latest point release (currently 9.3.9). The official recommendation of the project:

We always recommend that all users run the latest available minor release for whatever major version is in use.

Better yet, upgrade to 9.4 which has received major improvements for GIN indexes.

Major problem 1: Cost estimates

The cost of some textsearch functions has been seriously underestimated up to and including version 9.4. That cost is raised by factor 100 in the upcoming version 9.5 like @jjanes describes in his recent answer:

• PostgreSQL not using index

Here are the respective thread where this was discussed and the commit message by Tom Lane.

As you can see in the commit message, to_tsvector() is among those functions. You can apply the change immediately (as superuser):

ALTER FUNCTION to_tsvector (regconfig, text) COST 100;

which should make it much more likely that your functional index is used.

Major problem 2: KNN

The core problem is that Postgres has to calculate a rank with ts_rank() for 260k rows (rows=261011) before it can order by and pick the top 5. This is going to be expensive, even after you have fixed other problems as discussed. It's a K-nearest-neighbour (KNN) problem by nature and there are solutions for related cases. But I cannot think of a general solution for your case, since the rank calculation itself depends on user input. I would try to eliminate the bulk of low ranking matches early so that the full calculation only has to be done for few good candidates.

One way I can think of is to combine your fulltext search with trigram similarity search - which offers a working implementation for the KNN problem. This way you can pre-select the "best" matches with LIKE predicate as candidates (in a subquery with LIMIT 50 for example) and then pick the 5 top-ranking rows according to your rank-calculation in the main query.

Or apply both predicates in the same query and pick the closest matches according to trigram similarity (which would produce different results) like in this related answer:

• PostgreSQL FTS and Trigram-similarity Query Optimization

I did some more research and you are not the first to run into this problem. Related posts on pgsql-general:

• thread 1 (2011)
• thread 2 (2012)
• thread 3 (2014)

Work is ongoing to eventually implement a tsvector <-> tsquery operator.

Oleg Bartunov and Alexander Korotkov even presented a working prototype (using >< as operator instead of <-> back then) but it's very complex to integrate in Postgres, the whole infrastructure for GIN indexes has to be reworked (most of which is done by now).

Major problem 3: weights and index

And I identified one more factor adding to the slowness of the query. Per documentation:

GIN indexes are not lossy for standard queries, but their performance depends logarithmically on the number of unique words. (However, GIN indexes store only the words (lexemes) of tsvector values, and not their weight labels. Thus a table row recheck is needed when using a query that involves weights.)

Bold emphasis mine. As soon as weight are involved, each row has to be fetched from the heap (not just a cheap visibility check) and long values have to be de-toasted, which adds to the cost. But there seems to be a solution for that:

Index definition

Looking at your index again, it doesn't seem to make sense to begin with. You assign a weight to a single column, which is meaningless as long as you don't concatenate other columns with a different weight.

COALESCE() also makes no sense as long as you don't actually concatenate more columns.

Simplify your index:

CREATE INDEX "File_contentIndex" ON "File" USING gin
(to_tsvector('english', "CONTENT");

And your query:

SELECT "ITEMID", ts_rank(to_tsvector('english', "CONTENT")
                       , plainto_tsquery('english', 'searchTerm')) AS rank
FROM   "File"
WHERE  to_tsvector('english', "CONTENT")
       @@ plainto_tsquery('english', 'searchTerm')
ORDER  BY rank DESC
LIMIT  5;

Still expensive for a search term that matches every row, but probably much less.

Asides

All of these issues combined, the insane cost of 520 seconds for your second query is beginning to make sense. But there still may be more problems. Did you configure your server?
All the usual advice for performance optimization applies.

It makes your life easier if you don't work with double-quotes CaMeL-case identifiers:

• Are PostgreSQL column names case-sensitive?