Exercise 1: Why LIKE '%word%' Is a Poor Substitute for Full-Text Search — Possible Solution
====================================================================

THE TASK
------------------------------
Name at least two concrete limitations of LIKE '%word%' matching,
using this chapter's own material.

LIMITATION 1: IT CAN'T BE INDEXED EFFICIENTLY FOR ARBITRARY SUBSTRINGS
------------------------------
Per this chapter, LIKE '%word%' matching "can't be indexed
efficiently for arbitrary substrings." A leading wildcard ('%word%')
means the database can't use a standard B-tree index the way it could
for a prefix match (e.g. 'word%') — with a wildcard at the start of
the pattern, the database generally has to scan through candidate
rows rather than jump directly to matches, making this kind of search
genuinely slow at any real scale.

LIMITATION 2: IT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WORD FORMS
------------------------------
Per this chapter, LIKE '%word%' matching "doesn't understand word
forms (searching 'running' won't match a row containing only 'run')."
A plain string match only finds the exact substring typed — it has no
concept of "running" and "run" being related forms of the same word,
so a user searching for one form gets no results for content that
happens to use a different but related form of the same word.

ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS NAMED IN THE CHAPTER (for completeness)
------------------------------
Per this chapter, LIKE '%word%' matching also "produces no ranking
of how well a result actually matches" (every match is treated as
equally good, with no sense of relevance), and "has no concept of
ignoring common, low-value words like 'the' or 'and'" (stop words
aren't filtered out, so searches involving common words behave no
differently than searches for meaningful, distinctive terms).

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It names two (of the chapter's own four) concrete, distinct
limitations — indexing inefficiency and lack of word-form
understanding — using the chapter's own specific wording and example,
satisfying the "at least two" requirement with genuinely different
problems rather than restating the same point twice.