>>>>I'm sure that 'all words' table could make it faster than anything.
>>>>Btw, I made some testing with a table of similar (as told in the thread) size. First query was slow enough (6 sec), but all subsequent were almost instant (big surprise :). So one could just fool users by running something on background.
>>>
>>>Did you use the same word in next queries?
>>
>>different :)
>
>Try with SYS(1104) in between.

So what?