If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
"Paul" wrote
| Actually, you cannot stop Windows Search from indexing content. | Why not? Indexing service is one of the first things I turn off. I don't see any point to all that disk thrashing just to provide faster search. And I never use Windows search, anyway. I think this was discussed before. Everything.exe indexes while Agent Ransack just does a fast search. I find AR nearly instant for most of what I search for, but maybe it depends on personal style. If Char waits nearly 1 minute just to find a matching file name he must have an awfully lot of files. I don't wait that long to find embedded text in a file. On the other hand, I'm never searching C drive because I don't store things there. Everything.exe might be best for people who don't tend to be organized, and AR for people who don't depend so much on search. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
"VanguardLH" wrote
| Alas, quite often I need to find something *in* a file, especially | because I don't know what the file is named. Filelocator can search | inside. Everything cannot. | | Of course, you can also configure the Windows Search service to not only | search on filenames but also on their contents. One of the reasons I stopped using Windows search was because it would only look inside certain types of files. It so happens that CAB files contain a plain text list of the contained files. I rarely need to search for a file by name, but needing to find a file in a CAB is not so unusual. If I need to find something like abc.dll among 60 system CABs in a service pack or on a Windows install disk, I can do that quickly by seaching for the text "abc.dll" in the CABs, using Agent Ransack. Windows search categorizes a CAB as a "binary" file and considers text search irrelevant. So you can't search for files in CABs. VersionInfo or resource strings in PE files, or EXIF tags in JPG are a similar case. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
Paul wrote:
Actually, you cannot stop Windows Search from indexing content. I don't remember discussing stopping Windows Search but maybe. I haven't had my coffee yet and my concentration is impaired by a sore body after felling and cutting up yet another tree destroyed by carpenter ants (so I had to spray insecticide when cutting the trunk). In any case, yes, you can stop it. Got into services.msc and either stop the service (for that Windows session) or disable it (to never run again until you reenable the service). Rather than permanently disable it, you can remove it: Control Panel - Programs and Features - Turn Windows features on or off (and wait) - scroll down and deselect Windows Search. I leave Windows Search running because of its integration with the Start menu's search box and also in MS Outlook. I have also added more places for where it will scan. While Microsoft has a rather large vocabulary of operators you can use in its searches, it's their proprietary list. Since I've learned regex for several programs, I prefer to use that to narrow my searches. Both Everything and FileLocator support regex. Doesn't matter what that little control claims :-) I already tested this and was disappointed by the result. Of what little control do you speak? I don't know if Microsoft ever bothered to fix it. I'm not going to sit around re-testing it. I've never had a problem disabling the Windows Search service or removing the feature from Windows. There's a philosophical statement inherent in this from the Windows Search developers that says "of course you *always* index content, no exceptions". So that tick box is probably their little in-joke. Are you talking about right-clicking on a drive in Windows Explorer and disabling Windows Search from scanning that drive? After deselecting "Allow files on this drive to have contents indexed in addition to file properties", and after rebuilding the index, anytime that I've performed a Windows Search the files on those drives aren't found. I have a disk where local copies of backups are stored (amonst other places) and I don't need those files indexed. I have a disk where I save downloads (for installs), some much smaller backups (like exported settings for programs), some ISO image files of CDs (e.g., Windows 7, Office 365), and other files that are reproducible and have their own online backups, so I don't need those files indexed. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: no wrote: I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie files. I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match. I have no batch file skillz. Anyone care to write one for me? Why not use a file search tool? Search Everything from voidtools Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast. FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack) Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches (performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program. Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds. Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast. Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast". Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference. On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC disk), it would be noticeable. In my test described above, the initial search times for Everything and Agent Ransack were 0 seconds and 59 seconds, respectively. Subsequent searches took 0 seconds and 42 seconds, respectively. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think you're saying that subsequent searches in Agent Ransack can also be 0 seconds, or very close to it. So far, I can only force that behavior by drastically restricting Ransack's search scope, so I must be missing something. FileLocator will still have to scan the file system to check for folder timestamp changes to determine if any files under them have changed. It still has to do a lot of file I/O. Everything is monitoring file changes as they happen. That's why I said Everything, as an indexing service, will be faster than FileLocator even on FileLocator's cached searches. However, on an SSD, that file system scan in FileLocator on its cached search is so fast that I cannot see it taking longer than Everything. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
Mayayana wrote:
VanguardLH wrote | Alas, quite often I need to find something *in* a file, especially | because I don't know what the file is named. Filelocator can search | inside. Everything cannot. | | Of course, you can also configure the Windows Search service to not only | search on filenames but also on their contents. One of the reasons I stopped using Windows search was because it would only look inside certain types of files. It so happens that CAB files contain a plain text list of the contained files. I rarely need to search for a file by name, but needing to find a file in a CAB is not so unusual. If I need to find something like abc.dll among 60 system CABs in a service pack or on a Windows install disk, I can do that quickly by seaching for the text "abc.dll" in the CABs, using Agent Ransack. Windows search categorizes a CAB as a "binary" file and considers text search irrelevant. So you can't search for files in CABs. VersionInfo or resource strings in PE files, or EXIF tags in JPG are a similar case. Control Panel - Indexing Options - Advanced - File Types tab You don't see a list of filetypes there that have an associated handler that you can choose whether or not to include in Windows Search? It won't search for contents on filetypes for which no handler has been assigned because then it has no means of looking in the file. For me, all filetypes available with a handler (so the only ones listed) are selected. CAB is one of the filetypes listed. For me, Peazip is the handler associated with .cab files. I don't know what handler (program) you use to open .cab files. I can see why Windows Search doesn't look in compressed archive files. Does Everything search /inside/ of .zip files? I just did a test. I created a .txt file with a long string that should be unique. I zipped up the ..txt file into a .zip file. Everything could instantly find the new zip file with a search on "*.zip". It took over 55 seconds (how long depends on how many .zip files you have to look inside) for Everything to run "*.zip content:nowisthetimeforallgoodmentocometotheaid" to find the particular .zip file with the unique string. If I exit Everthing's window (not its service) and reperform the search on zip files with content of the unique string, it again takes 55 seconds to find the particular .zip file. So Everything will look inside compressed files but only it you direct it to, but the search results are not cached across multiple runs of the Everything GUI. Did you ever configure the Windows Search service to look inside of files? Control Panel - Indexing Options - Advanced - Filetypes tab, enable the "Index Properties and File Contents" option (and rebuild the index)? As with Everything taking a lot longer in its search on contents, Windows Search will take a long time to dig into files. Be interesting to find out if "and File Contents" would make Windows Search dig into compressed files. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
"VanguardLH" wrote
| Windows search categorizes a CAB as a "binary" file and considers | text search irrelevant. So you can't search for files in CABs. | VersionInfo or resource strings in PE files, or EXIF tags in JPG are | a similar case. | | Control Panel - Indexing Options - Advanced - File Types tab | Interesting. That must be a Win7 addition. I haven't looked at Windows search to speak of since I chased away that obnoxious dog cartoon in XP. I don't know why anyone would use it. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:45:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: no wrote: I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie files. I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match. I have no batch file skillz. Anyone care to write one for me? Why not use a file search tool? Search Everything from voidtools Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast. FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack) Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches (performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program. Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds. Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast. Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast". Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference. On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC disk), it would be noticeable. Nope, that's not it. I use SSD's here, as well, and the difference between Everything and Ransack on first runs versus subsequent runs isn't a fraction of a second. Using the numbers I provided above, Everything provided results in 0 and 0 seconds, while Ransack provided results in 59 and 42 seconds. You'd definitely notice the difference between 0 and 42 seconds. The only way to get Ransack to operate as fast as Everything is to severely constrain the test; i.e, ask both to search a very shallow directory tree with relatively few files. That's not a valid test, though, so I think the conclusion has to be that your claim is provably false. -- Char Jackson |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:45:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: no wrote: I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie files. I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match. I have no batch file skillz. Anyone care to write one for me? Why not use a file search tool? Search Everything from voidtools Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast. FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack) Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches (performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program. Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds. Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast. Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast". Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference. On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC disk), it would be noticeable. Nope, that's not it. I use SSD's here, as well, and the difference between Everything and Ransack on first runs versus subsequent runs isn't a fraction of a second. Using the numbers I provided above, Everything provided results in 0 and 0 seconds, while Ransack provided results in 59 and 42 seconds. You'd definitely notice the difference between 0 and 42 seconds. The only way to get Ransack to operate as fast as Everything is to severely constrain the test; i.e, ask both to search a very shallow directory tree with relatively few files. That's not a valid test, though, so I think the conclusion has to be that your claim is provably false. Guess that depends on how many files can be found matching on your search criteria. For me, there are only 903 *.txt files. FileLocator took 9 seconds on a 2nd (cached) search, not 42 seconds. I don't remember what I searche on in my 1st reply. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:52:17 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:45:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: no wrote: I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie files. I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match. I have no batch file skillz. Anyone care to write one for me? Why not use a file search tool? Search Everything from voidtools Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast. FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack) Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches (performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program. Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds. Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast. Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast". Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference. On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC disk), it would be noticeable. Nope, that's not it. I use SSD's here, as well, and the difference between Everything and Ransack on first runs versus subsequent runs isn't a fraction of a second. Using the numbers I provided above, Everything provided results in 0 and 0 seconds, while Ransack provided results in 59 and 42 seconds. You'd definitely notice the difference between 0 and 42 seconds. The only way to get Ransack to operate as fast as Everything is to severely constrain the test; i.e, ask both to search a very shallow directory tree with relatively few files. That's not a valid test, though, so I think the conclusion has to be that your claim is provably false. Guess that depends on how many files can be found matching on your search criteria. For me, there are only 903 *.txt files. The number of matching files is mostly irrelevant. What's more important is the total number of files and the total number of directories that needed to be traversed. FileLocator took 9 seconds on a 2nd (cached) search, not 42 seconds. I don't remember what I searche on in my 1st reply. Heh, the 42 seconds was on my system, not yours. :-) -- Char Jackson |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
Char Jackson wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: FileLocator took 9 seconds on a 2nd (cached) search, not 42 seconds. I don't remember what I searche on in my 1st reply. Heh, the 42 seconds was on my system, not yours. :-) Yep, 9 seconds on mine, 42 seconds on yours, but probably different search criteria in file systems with different numbers of folders and files. While probably not exactly the same folder and file count as FileLocator must traverse when reading the file system, a 'dir /s' command (which takes a LOT longer probably due to all the stdout) returns 223,765 files and 138,371 folders (and just over an additional thousand each for a 'dir /ahs'). I didn't bother looking at the depth of the folders. My SSD is a Samsung 850 EVO 2.5" 256MB SATA3. Different SSDs have different read/write speeds. Alas, this is in an old desktop PC that only has SATA2 ports on the mobo. No SATA3 yet (that'll be in my next build). This was a salvaged PC built in 2009 that I got in 2013 that required a new PSU, new video card (which still pricey these days), a new HDD (later added the SSD), and Speedfan for the CPU fan since the BIOS could no longer control RPM based on temperature. The 8 GB RAM it has is the max this old mobo will support. Most times about half is unused. Hey, it was free (but not to repair). The only setting that I found in FileLocator that looks like it could change its search speed is under Tools - Configuration - General - Performance - Allow multiple search threads. The description says it will create seaparate threads for each CPU core. While I don't consider my CPU as recent or powerful (Intel Core 2 Quad 9400), it is a quad core, so maybe that helps. Something else that could affect search speed is security software. I was using Avast free (trimmed down to just the file, behavior, and web shields - no fluff, no lureware). I uninstalled it, ran aswclear, and cleaned out all its remnant registry entries and files. I tried Bitdefender free but found it noticeably impacted file operations. Most everything got slower. Web browsing was most affected where web browsers got jerky or longer delay to respond when scrolling long web pages and downloads took longer. When starting to download a file, it was like 5-10 seconds before even the browser dialog appeared to let me select where to save the file. Went back to Avast and everything was faster to respond. In the interim between uninstalling Avast but before installing Bitdefender, I noticed my system seemed a tad perkier. I realize all that interrogation causes overhead but some security software causes more impact on responsiveness than others. Now that I found Everything has a "content:" operator to look inside of files (although a lot slower but still seems faster than FileLocator), I'll probably not bother using FileLocator anymore. FileLocator let me dig into files looking for strings but I found out so does Everything. I'll have to spend some time digging into all the operators available in Everything (see Help - Search Syntax) along with all the command-line options (Help - Command Line Options). |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I need another batch file.
Paul news
Jul 2018 22:26:20 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:
lid wrote: I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie files. I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match. I have no batch file skillz. Anyone care to write one for me? Who needs batch skillz, when you have money ? http://qa.mythicsoft.com/14676/how-t...fic-sub-subfol ders-in-agent-ransack "That functionality is not available in Agent Ransack. However, in FileLocator Pro you can do it using a location filter, e.g. Look In: C:\Folder;+important " Paul You can do it for free with dirlister, the console, etc... [g] -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = The best teddy bears are the live kind. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|