Constructing a Windows Search query

Question

We have a website in which we will be using the Windows Search feature to allow users to search the pages and documents of the site. I would like to make the search as intuitive as possible, given that most users are already familiar with google-style search syntax. However, using Windows Search seems to present two problems.

1. If I use the FREETEXT() predicate, then users can enter certain google-style syntax options, such as double quotes for exact phrase matching or use the minus sign to exclude a certain word. These are features I consider necessary. However, the FREETEXT() predicate seems to demand that every search term appear somewhere in the page / document in order for it to be returned in the results.

2. If I use the CONTAINS() predicate, then users can enter search terms using boolean operators, and they can execute wildcard searches using the * character. However, all search terms must be joined by one of the logical operators or enclosed in double quotation marks.

What I would like is a combination of the two. Users should be able to search for exact phrases using double quotations marks, exclude words using the minus sign, but also have anything not enclosed in quotation marks be subject to wildcard matching (e.g. searching for civ would return documents containing the words civil or civility or civilization).

How could I go about implementing this?

Answer 1

I followed some of the instructions at http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/21142/How-to-Use-Windows-Vista-Search-API-from-a-WPF-App to create the Interop.SearchAPI.dll assembly for .NET. I then used the ISearchQueryHelper.GenerateSQLFromUserQuery() method to build the SQL command.

The generated SQL uses the CONTAINS() predicate, but it builds the CONTAINS() predicate numerous times with different combinations of the search terms, including wild cards. This allows the user to enter exact phrases using double quotation marks, exclude words using the minus sign, and perform automatic wildcard matching as I mentioned in the original question.