MySQL vs MSSQL 'Full Text Search'

ChatGPT_Prompt
does mysql have fulltext search that is comparable to microsoft sql server with the contains clause, the tablecontains clause and near operators and noisewords? How is performance in mysql-native FullTextSearch compared to MSSQL?

ChatGPT_Answer
MySQL does support **Full-Text Search** (FTS), but there are some differences compared to Microsoft SQL Server's full-text features such as the **`CONTAINS`** clause, **`NEAR`** operators, and **noisewords**.

### MySQL Full-Text Search Overview:
- MySQL's full-text search is available starting in MyISAM and InnoDB tables (since MySQL 5.6 for InnoDB).
- You can perform searches using operators like **`MATCH()`** against full-text indexes, and it works well for natural language searches or boolean mode searches.
- MySQL supports boolean operators such as **`+`**, **`-`**, **`> <`**, **`~`**, **`*`** (wildcard), and **`" "`** (phrase searches).

### Differences with Microsoft SQL Server:
1. **`CONTAINS` and `NEAR` Operators:**
   - SQL Server provides **`CONTAINS`** for matching keywords and phrases, and **`NEAR`** for proximity searches (i.e., words that are near each other within a certain distance).
   - MySQL does not have a direct equivalent to **`NEAR`** in its native implementation. However, you can achieve similar behavior with some workaround using the **`WITHIN`** syntax or by using full-text search combined with a query that measures word distances manually.

2. **Noise Words:**
   - SQL Server uses **noise words** to filter out common words from being indexed.
   - MySQL has a similar concept with a **stopword list** (located in a file like `ft_stopword_file`). This list can be customized or turned off, similar to how noise words work in SQL Server.

3. **TableContains:**
   - SQL Server has a **`CONTAINSTABLE`** function that returns a ranking of rows based on the relevance of the search term.
   - In MySQL, **relevance** is also provided in `MATCH()` queries, where the results come with a score that indicates the relevance of each row.

### Performance Comparison:
- **MySQL Full-Text Search Performance:**
  - Native MySQL FTS (especially in InnoDB) performs well for medium-sized datasets, but performance can degrade for large datasets or when you have highly complex search queries.
  - MySQL's boolean search mode allows for more control over how queries are processed, but it may lack the fine-tuned proximity and relevance ranking that SQL Server offers out-of-the-box.
  - MySQL FTS tends to be simpler and less configurable compared to SQL Server’s full-text indexing, but it's easier to set up and generally performant for most needs.

- **SQL Server Full-Text Search Performance:**
  - SQL Server's full-text search is highly optimized for enterprise environments with large data sets.
  - It handles complex queries with better scalability and fine-tuned relevance ranking, especially when using **`CONTAINS`**, **`CONTAINSTABLE`**, and **`NEAR`** operators.
  - SQL Server also has more advanced indexing options for handling large amounts of text, along with features like **thesaurus** support and proximity searches that are not natively available in MySQL.

### Alternative for Advanced Full-Text Search in MySQL:
For more complex use cases like proximity search, you might want to consider using **Elasticsearch** or **Sphinx Search** with MySQL, as they provide advanced search capabilities, including proximity and more granular control over ranking and performance.

### Summary:
- **MySQL FTS** is good for most standard use cases, especially for small to medium datasets, but lacks some advanced features like **`NEAR`** and the more sophisticated ranking options of SQL Server.
- **SQL Server FTS** is generally more robust and better suited for enterprise use cases where search complexity, performance, and scalability are crucial.