More on search hell

Ok geeks, you are not going to like this. But please remember, this is just my personal opinion, based on the tests I've done today. No facts, just a subjective user opinion. OK?

I'll stick to Windows Search. I ran some tests and File Locator Lite is a huge disappointment. First I disconnected all external disks, leaving only my two internal HD's, C where I have Windows and Program Files (300 gigs, 160 gigs used) and D where I have ProgramData folder and user profiles (300 gigs, 250 gigs used). I also disabled indexing.

I searched the whole computer file contents to find all files where the word "Audit" appears. Search from Explorer > 2 minutes 50 seconds, 44 hits, the files I was looking among them.



Then File Locator. I did not have enough patience to wait, I interrupted the search after 1 hour 40 minutes when it had searched just over half of my computer, finding thousands and thousands files. All hits useless; I mean, if I'm searching for a word in file contents, what the hell am I doing with all exe and dll files where File Locator finds this word?



Windows Search 1 - File Locator 0

Next test. Explorer search for the same word in my user folder D:\Users\Kari (197 gigs). Windows Search 55 seconds, 37 hits, all relevant.



File locator:



Again, I had no patience to wait. I interrupted the search after 1 hour 13 minutes, when File Locator had searched about 65% of my user folder, finding over 130 files, mostly useless and irrelevant hits.

Windows Search 2 - File Locator 0

Ok, last test. Searching the same word, this time in my documents folder D:\Users\Kari\Documents (32 gigs). Windows search 7 seconds, 26 hits, all relevant. File locator 3 minutes 22 seconds, 26 hits, all relevant

Windows Search 3 - File Locator 0

Kari

Kari said:

Ok geeks, you are not going to like this. But please remember, this is just my personal opinion, based on the tests I've done today. No facts, just a subjective user opinion. OK?

I'll stick to Windows Search. I run some test and File Locator Lite is a huge disappointment. First test was to disconnect all external disks, leaving only my two internal HD's, C where I have Windows and Program Files (300 gigs, 160 gigs used) and D where I have ProgramData folder and user profiles (300 gigs, 250 gigs used). I also disabled indexing.

I searched the whole computer file contents to find all files where the word "Audit" appears. Search from Explorer > 2 minutes 50 seconds, 44 hits, the files I was looking among them.

Then File Locator. I did not have enough patience to wait, I interrupted the search after 1 hour 40 minutes when it had searched just over half of my computer, finding thousands and thousands files. All hits useless; I mean, if I'm searching for a word in file contents, what the hell am I doing with all exe and dll files where File Locator finds this word?



Windows Search 1 - File Locator 0

Next test. Explorer search for the same word in my user folder D:\Users\Kari (197 gigs). Windows Search 55 seconds, 37 hits, all relevant. File locator:



Again, I had no patience to wait. I interrupted the search after 1 hour 13 minutes, when File Locator had searched about 65% of my user folder, finding over 130 files, mostly useless and irrelevant hits.

Windows Search 2 - File Locator 0

Ok, last test. Serarching the same word, this time in my documents folder D:\Users\Kari\Documents (32 gigs). Windows search 7 seconds, 26 hits, all relevant. File locator 3 minutes 22 seconds, 26 hits, all relevant

Windows Search 3 - File Locator 0

Kari

And that is why whenever the subject of Windows Search comes up on SevenForums (or anywhere else), I always try to make people understand how much better it is than the sub-standard third-party utilities.

It could stand to be tweaked a bit, but for the emmediate here and now, it's the best there is.

My last, third test alone shows the difference, doing it very clearly.

My Documents folder has ONLY relevant files, regarding this search test. I save there nothing else. I mean, at least in my case the Documents folder only includes MS Office files, PDF-files, text files and so on. No pics, videos, music, nothing more than documents.

And the results? Quoting my own post:

Kari said:

...
Ok, last test. Searching the same word, this time in my documents folder D:\Users\Kari\Documents (32 gigs). Windows search 7 seconds, 26 hits, all relevant. File locator 3 minutes 22 seconds, 26 hits, all relevant

Windows Search 3 - File Locator 0

This was the only of my three tests where both found the same files. In my other tests, I didn't exclude any files from File Locator search because I also didn't exclude files from Windows search. Same terms for both. You call it biased when I use same terms and parameters on both searches, at the same time you are not biased when you have to use quite a lot extra time when excluding files from your File Locator search. Where's the logics of that?

BTW, you have to use even more time if you want to do it as easy as it is with Windows Search. Your search results include for instance control panel cpl-files, at least one movie clip, some language files for an application etc. so there's quite a lot to exclude, to type.

Besides, how many gigs did you search in that 10 minutes? My tests were searching over 400 gigs:



When search takes as long as it took using File Locator searching just over 400 gigs, or as in my last test only 32 gigs of documents, how long it would take when I have my 3.5+ teras external disks connected?

Have you even tried turning Windows indexing off and then using "contents:" parameter?

Kari

I'm going to need some time to digest your response. Just a couple of things.
Any reference by me to the word "bias" is used in the context of experimental bias and has no personal reference to you. We are both working on two different computers and datasets. My search statistics are in the screenshots.

You mention relevance of the finds of the string "audit". This confuses me since you either find the string in the document or not.

With (Agent Ransack)AR you can save search contexts. The file exclusion list is a user (me) defined context - you don't manually setup a context each time.

When you say:
"Have you even tried turning Windows indexing off and then using "contents:" parameter?"
Yes
I've tried the exercise on my D:\ drive which is not indexed.
with AR I have a directory with around 3500 source code subroutines
4 of them have " mjf modified x/x/x " in them and
finds the 4 in <1 sec.

Windows non indexed search finds nothing. It will find file names without any problem but not contents.

PS: I'm pretty much at the stage where:
(1) For me and others Windows search is flawed. Or we cannot get it to work for us.
(2) I don't shower praise on a program lightly and Agent Ransack for me gets full marks for what it is. It suits me.
(3) If you think Windows search is the best thing out since sliced bread and Agent Ransack is Micky Mouse - fine, I really don't care.

mjf said:

I'm going to need some time to digest your response. Just a couple of things.
Any reference by me to the word "bias" is used in the context of experimental bias and has no personal reference to you. We are both working on two different computers and datasets. My search statistics are in the screenshots.

My misinterpretation. I'm sorry for that.

mjf said:

You mention relevance of the finds of the string "audit". This confuses me since you either find the string in the document or not.

English not being my native language, not even second language, I make this kind of remarks quite often. I mean something and say something else.

What I meant with relevant files regarding the last of my three small tests was that because I only have certain types of files in my Documents folder, only filetypes where text strings appear and are relevant to and should be included in search, the search environment was at least in my opinion equal for both search apps. No files to exclude, no exe, dll, com and so on files to go unnecessary through. This, I think, makes this last of my three tests more balanced giving really something to compare.

mjf said:

With (Agent Ransack)AR you can save search contexts. The file exclusion list is a user (me) defined context - you don't manually setup a context each time.

Yes, that is only logical. However, this is one step you don't have to do with Windows Search.

mjf said:

When you say:
"Have you even tried turning Windows indexing off and then using "contents:" parameter?"
Yes
I've tried the exercise on my D:\ drive which is not indexed.
with AR I have a directory with around 3500 source code subroutines
4 of them have " mjf modified x/x/x " in them and
finds the 4 in <1 sec.

Windows non indexed search finds nothing. It will find file names without any problem but not contents.

That I have to test more. I have a lot of code, from HTML to different dialects of C on my HD and I seem to be able to find what I'm looking for.

mjf said:

(3) If you think Windows search is the best thing out since sliced bread and Agent Ransack is Micky Mouse - fine, I really don't care.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts in this thread, I prefer Google Desktop Search when I have to find complicated strings. But only then. However, we were talking about Windows Search versus AR or File Locator, and in my opinion it's easy to prove latter two belong to minor league compared to Windows Search.

I have too much data to search, no time and patience to play with searches that take an hour or more.

Kari

Kari said:

I searched the whole computer file contents to find all files where the word "Audit" appears. Search from Explorer > 2 minutes 50 seconds, 44 hits, the files I was looking among them.

They keyword "contents:" is exactly what I'd been looking for. Dunno how I missed it previously, it just wasn't clicking for me until I re-read your post. So to test it I groveled through several gigs of .pdf manuals a coupla minutes ago and it found me what I wanted.

I love you.

In a manly, brotherly way.

Trucidation said:

I love you.

In a manly, brotherly way.

Thanks. Although open minded, I'm too old to start experimenting with my sexuality...

Hi! James,

No need to apologize for the length of your post, solid solutions require rational thought.
My hope is that you, and everyone else will have the patients to endure this one.


You are correct in your assumption that your .eml results will need a filter. I offer the first attachment as a qualifier, this view can be found at: Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Indexing Options\Advance Options\File Types.
As you can see I do not have the Registered IFilter either.

That's not all, I have a total of five not Registered IFilters one of which is for .pdf files.
The exclusion of these filters will degrade the performance of Windows Search.

The .pdf filter seems to be a matter of contention with a lot of users. I have applied the latest filter that I know of located here: Adobe - Acrobat : For Windows : Adobe PDF iFilter 9 for 64-bit platforms You will notice that it only goes to Vistax64, but it installed, is running, and has improved my search for text within .pdf documents.
With the plethora of .pdf style programs available today the corresponding IFilter will need to be installed if it does not come with the program.

Full-Text search is based on the character-based data in SQL Server tables.
By default, the following data types are supported: char, varchar, nchar, nvarchar, text, ntext, image, xml, varbinary, or varbinary(max). However, if you want to search for the additional document formats, you need to install the IFilter that supports the document formats.

Full text search should support pdf files, and logically can support .eml files if you can find a suitable IFilter for it, and there lies the rub.

So far the only solution I have been able to find is a registry modification offered by Microsoft here: Using Windows Search to search for Windows Live Mail e-mail will return incomplete results on Windows 7 64-bit Operating Systems

As to a installable IFilter, I have not been able to find one. Yet.


Win7 should come with at least a lite version of SQL. Mine is located at: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SQL Server Compact Edition\v3.1 .
This by itself may explain the problems with WinSearch, the full blown version of SQL may offer a better platform for WinSearch.

This concerns me. Certainly it should have been included in the results. It was even on the Recent file list in the Start Menu. If I can't trust the accuracy of the results, or if it doesn't find the file I need, it's a problem.

The reason for this is because win7 handles the RFL differently than stored files, and it could be files that may not have been indexed yet.

Simply put, 'the masses' will not be able to benefit from WIn7 search simply because they won't take the time to learn AQS. This, IMO, is a no brainer. If AQS really is the secret, most are left out in the cold, or, 'Search Hell', as it were. It encompasses a complexity that most just aren't willing to take on

I equate this to the recent flap with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) here in the States, and how they conduct searches.
Everyone wants the utmost in security, but now that they have it they are unwilling to submit to it.
That's just human nature; It's not me, it's you.

I myself would be quite happy using more advanced forms of AQS, if that is all there is to it. However, given that valid returns were not included in my 'type:doc name:ch*' search, I still have concerns.

This is where that file may not have the proper permissions or you may have either an incomplete index or a corrupt one.
Security, and permissions are a whole 'nother story involving WinSearch, if the file is secure...Indexing can not touch it. Think UAC
One solution I found, that again is a registry modification. Please read fully, and take note of the “notes” before implementing. This can be found at DocBlases's post #8 here:
Win7 in-folder search is kind of crippled.

Apologies to all for the length of this post. For me, this is not the end. I somehow hope that the un-included file is my lack (but I somehow doubt this), and that I simply require a greater degree of AQS savvy. It's something I'll be looking into. And I'll likely learn a great deal in the process. Thanks, Anak, for your post, and to all contributors. I'm on a new path of learning.

The un-included results, however, are bothersome, and seem to support the oft-held conclusion that Win 7 Search is inconsistent in its performance for different users. I suppose time will tell.

Your welcome. I agree, everyone's mileage will vary until WinSearch becomes reliable. Refer to my above comments about the un-included results.

I would like to see The forum Admins create a re-direct for any questions on WinSearch to a sticky for Windows Desktop Search, they could use gilmoses's thread here to start one.

Just the other day I was going to answer this one, How do I use 'Search'? , but thought different .
It would of been, just 'nother until I saw DeaconFrost's answer in post #8. Instead I gave him some rep.
A mite drastic, but getting back to defaults works in a lot of cases.

Post #4 earlier in this thread by Dzomlija is another excellent explanation.

In lieu of the above, Brinks Tutorials on search here:
Search in Windows 7 , and the accompanying tutorials at the bottom are also excellent starting points.


For now, “That's it”...I have to go and swap-out a dead tractor battery.

Steve....aka...Anak...