locked
limitation on number of metadata property mappings RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    I want to know if there is any limitation on number of metadata property mappings or is there any perfomance issue with too many metadata property mappings. The senario is: I have around 90-100 custom properties in user profile and i need to include 50-60 of them into the search query (depending on condition selected by user), i want to know if there is any limitation on number of metadata property mappings or is there any perfomance issue with too many metadata property mappings.
    Any comment on this or a related link will be of much help.

    Thanks,
    Gaurav Dixit

    Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:37 AM

Answers

  • Hi Gaurav,

    The maximum number of Managed Properties according to the Software Boundaries (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262787.aspx) is 100.000 per SSP, so that's not going to be a problem for you.
    You search query might run a bit slow if you use too many properties in a single query, but there is not guidance on that as far as I know, so the best thing you can do there is to test it through and modify it if neccessary.


    Mirjam --http://www.sharepointblogs.com/mirjam
    • Proposed as answer by Dave Hunter Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:14 AM
    • Marked as answer by Gaurav Dixit Friday, April 24, 2009 6:14 AM
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:59 AM

All replies

  • Hi Gaurav,

    The maximum number of Managed Properties according to the Software Boundaries (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262787.aspx) is 100.000 per SSP, so that's not going to be a problem for you.
    You search query might run a bit slow if you use too many properties in a single query, but there is not guidance on that as far as I know, so the best thing you can do there is to test it through and modify it if neccessary.


    Mirjam --http://www.sharepointblogs.com/mirjam
    • Proposed as answer by Dave Hunter Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:14 AM
    • Marked as answer by Gaurav Dixit Friday, April 24, 2009 6:14 AM
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:59 AM
  • thanks for fast reply.
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:38 AM