@SpectateSwamp said:
How long did it take Copernic to search? You know, that thing that search utilities do.the 526 took 16 minutes for copernic to index. Swamp Search can show you the data faster than that. A lot faster than that.
@SpectateSwamp said:
How long did it take Copernic to search? You know, that thing that search utilities do.the 526 took 16 minutes for copernic to index. Swamp Search can show you the data faster than that. A lot faster than that.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Copernic take down video.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8761501834934679010
All they need to do is install Swamp search right at the preview stage. Then they could open and display text up to their 800MB limit. I wouldn't want to try and open any big files with their preview program. SSDS OK but not Copernic.
Could you back up a bit and start from when you first open Copernic and SSDS? You'd have to show how you find the file with Copernic, then you'd have to show how you open up the file with SSDS. You're only showing one step of the process. Could you show the whole thing?
Also, could you please show SSDS searching an 800 MB file? I want to learn about how fast sequential search is. Try this:
@SpectateSwamp said:
I have been checking for words in thedailyWTF.txt file. so far they seem to be able to find everything I look for. A lot slower than SSDS but still found. I have looked for "security is nuts" and found that string. What gets lost when creating an index. Something must. I know Swamp search looks at all the data, so it has to find the results. See!!! I don't have all the answers. Answer my question O smart ones.
The index stores information about the different files on your system. It does not store the complete contents of each file. You can use the index to determine which files contain a given word, but you cannot reconstruct the original files just by looking at the index. This is by design: including the full contents of every file would make searching the index much slower. The idea is that you use the index to find the file you're looking for, then use the appropriate application to open the file. This is what a desktop search utility is supposed to do.
SSDS lets you view the contents of text files. It does nothing to help you find them. In fact, from what I've seen, the user has to manually type in the full path of the file that they want to search. This is the precise opposite of what a desktop search utility is supposed to do.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge my video request from earlier (show SSDS searching for a word at the bottom of an 800 MB file).
@SpectateSwamp said:
And I should probably reload my OS between each test? Google had some flimsy excuse for the 100,000 limit. It doesn't cut it on the desktop. Indexers all have limits and they carried them over to Desktop Search. This is Desktop Searches dirty little secret. Nobody mentioned it, until I ran into the barrier. How come?
Nobody has an interest in searching for specific words at the bottom of 100,000+ word text files. They search for, you know, useful things.
Like the titles of documents. Or the subjects. Which are usually at the beginning.
Also, the search limits for Meta Tracker are user-configurable. After tinkering with the settings a bit, I was able to get it to index down to the bottom of a ~765 MB file.
So, I finally got Meta Tracker to index that 800 MB file I made and I got to thinking... how much faster could I search this file with SSDS? I'm on Linux, so I tested with grep instead. The results were truly amazing. grep can search my entire home directory at least a thousandth times faster than Meta Tracker! I have seen the light. I will now use SSDS/grep whenever I need to search my entire home directory for files containing individual words.
I have created a video chronicling my incredible discovery. I didn't realize how brutal Youtube's scaling is, so the console text is blurry and almost impossible to read, even when fullscreen. I thought about redoing the video, but decided that it wouldn't be an SSDS video if it were anything other than completely unwatchable. For those with busy schedules, it's six minutes of me babbling in a vaguely SpectateSwamp-esque style while I wait for grep to finish.
God help me.
@SpectateSwamp said:
So large file sizes and search speeds are not a problem. For grepplers like MarcSwamp and Me
It has been demonstrated several times in this thread (including in MarcB's results) that it can take minutes for grep or SSDS to search for something, while indexed search applications can give results in less than a second. A minute is longer than a second. You would know this if you weren't an idiot.
@SpectateSwamp said:
I can see it now. In front of a divided audience. Techies and non-techies. The presenters "Search Experts" Developers and long time search users. Swamp data would be moving from computer to computer. Real projects burned and given to the crowd. Data shared. Knowledge shared. Desktop Search isn't that deep if a below average person can write one. Knowledge is power and the masses will know everything they need to know about Desktop Search, after this showdown.
Anybody here a WWF promoter?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature[/url]
@davidrhoskin said:
@rc_pinchey said:
So, who on earth needs tens of thousands of separate files? EVERYBODY, Swamp. Everybody.
on the contrary, my Atari ST loads the OS from a rom image, requiring 0 files to boot.
(and the FAT12 filesystem only supports up to 4,077 files per disk anyway)
Hi DavidSwamp. When can I expect SSDS for ST? It's in VB, so it's extremely portable.
@SpectateSwamp said:
All the details I want are there and I can search them randomly.
That's not, "searching." I'm not even sure what to call that. "Browsing," maybe.
@SpectateSwamp said:
The random text finds a random spot in the file and then it continues page by page. To pick a new random spot close it out. and start it up using enter enter enter. The defaults will be for random context etc so there is no texting required.
Wait, you have to close your application to pick a new random spot? You don't have a command or something to do that?
You can't even properly implement the one feature that you've been clinging to for the past several pages. Congrats.
@SpectateSwamp said:
If you have gone that far. How about trying DOUBLE Random Music.
That would sound like shit.
@cklam said:
To bstorer:
You have a rather pathetic view of 'hero'.
Have you never heard of database migration.
ckSwamp?
@morbiuswilters said:
@derula said:
All of those having sex with me don't exist. And no, that's not because I prefer guys. But because I'm lame.See, on the Internet, we don't actually know what you look like, how popular you were in high school nor how much pussy you are getting. You can just make up anything and people have to believe it. At the very least, they won't question it because then someone will point out they are lying as well.
I don't believe you.
@ClaudeSuck.de said:
No, you don't get it. The next version will not only search desktops, it will search entire milky ways... as soon as he gets the spelling into his config.txt.
I already figured that GOTO_LINE_234789 is prepared for that. You loserz.
I like ice cream.
@MarcB said:
@mxsscott said:
2nd 'inc eax' would stall because it's using the same register.It wouldn't stall, but it couldn't be auto-parallelized by the cpu's dispatcher. Stalls occur when you need to wait for data from the cache or main memory. "inc eax" is a purely in-cpu expression.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_(computer_architecture)#Data_hazards [/url]
Some other instructions would probably be run while waiting for the first increment to finish, so you likely wouldn't get a stall here anyway. Nevertheless, saying that stalls can only occur when you're waiting on memory is misleading.
@cklam said:
Fake Post because: Icon is off, orthography and diction are almost ok and subject stays the same over six consecutive sentences.Come on - that's lame. You guys have faked swampy's posts better than that before. Show some effort and this lackasidiacal (I hope spelled that one right) shit.
[url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?u=7016&o=DateDescending]List of Swampy's posts[/url].
Thanks for playing.
@CodeSimian said:
Quick suggestion. The following quote is funnier in its original context (hey, Swampy taught me something after all!):
I'm glad someone noticed that. The end line of that quite is IMO one of the funniest things to come out of SpectateSwamp.
EDIT: While I'm posting, I might as well give you permission to use [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=H5dCncMvhMw]that atrocious video[/url] I made comparing tracker-search to grep.
@ender said:
Am I the only one who just can't get used to Ctrl+XCV and uses Shift+Del, Ctrl+Ins and Shift+Ins instead?
It took me ten years to kick that habit. Please don't remind me.
@SpectateSwamp said:
I know teachers and principals. That are dumber than me. So what.
I bet they could form. Sentences correctly.
@SpectateSwamp said:
Years back at a Systematix Christmas party I was seated with 2 other new staff and their wives. They were University Computing profs. Both were very nervous about their upcomming assignments. They should have been. There is no way they could touch me with 15 years of consulting along with another 8 in Data Processing. Couldn't touch dumb old SpectateSwamp.
Do you have anything to back this statement up, or are you just being arrogant again?
@SpectateSwamp said:
Point #2 on the Degreeds and their stupidness. From a reliable source (a guy at the stores wicket). A new technical supervisor insisted that those doing the pulp testing, have tech degrees. Replacing and moving those aside that were not so well degreed. The new techies took way longer doing their tests than the oldtimers. The old group would grab a pinch of pulp between their fingers and roll it around. The techies would get some and run to their lab. Comming back with results 15 minutes later.
I think I see what you're trying to say here, but I think you're being a bit presumptuous. What sort of tests were they running? Was a simple by-feel test enough to produce the same results as a lab test? How is running a lab test necessarily a sign of stupidity?
@SpectateSwamp said:
The Degreeds discriminate against the rest of us.
No, just you.
@gherkin said:
Going slightly off-topic but still on the subject of spaces, I really don't understand why some people have a habit of putting double spaces between sentences.
I find it to be more readable. It makes it easier to see where new sentences begin.