New user -- Can't search the forums for the word "search"!

[daSpud]

Can't search the forums for the word "search". I wanted to search for any threads dealing with searching for files, but the forum search mechanism won't let me look for such a "common" word. "Find" gets the same treatment.....

Anyway, what I am trying to find out is how to "lock" in the search results on a tab. I have done a search on a disk and have my results. Let us say it is a large disk and the search itself too 45 seconds. I want to do a similar search on another disk (to another tab) and then manually flip back and forth between the two result tabs. When I click back on the first search tab it starts the search over. How do I prevent that?

Thanks, Spud

Also, is it possible to "subscribe" to a thread to receive an email when there is activity? I didn't see such an option. -- Blush now I see it.

[j_c_hallgren]

Hi and welcome to the XY forums!

Yes, looking for very common words can be an issue here -- I have to be creative some times in how I look for things...

As to your issue: Check out "Configuration | Find Files | Cache search results" and
"Show search results in" options also.

There was a similar query on the BitsDeJour site very recently - would that have been your inquiry also?

Not sure about the email thing - I just visit here every 30 min or so when I'm online.

[daSpud]

Thank you. Yes, I think that was my query. I have cache checked and I did change the results to go into a new tab, but when I click back on the first result, it searches again.

BTW in the top left of the first post of a thread is a "subscribe" button.

Spud

[daSpud]

Looking at it again, the cache feature is not really what I am looking for since it has to refresh all the data about the cached names. That takes a significant amount of time on a whole disk search.

I guess I was hoping that there was a cache-like feature that used memory to hold all the details and stayed there until closed or refreshed. That way a user could return to the tab with the search results over and over until finished.

Is there such a feature and I am just missing it?

Thanks, Spud

[admin]

Looking at it again, the cache feature is not really what I am looking for since it has to refresh all the data about the cached names. That takes a significant amount of time on a whole disk search.

I guess I was hoping that there was a cache-like feature that used memory to hold all the details and stayed there until closed or refreshed. That way a user could return to the tab with the search results over and over until finished.

Is there such a feature and I am just missing it?

Thanks, Spud

No, that's not the way it is done in XY.

[daSpud]

No, that's not the way it is done in XY.

Could it be done that way? Would it be useful for others? It sure would be for me.

Spud

[admin]

No, that's not the way it is done in XY.

Could it be done that way? Would it be useful for others? It sure would be for me.

Spud

The original design of the cache provides for such a way, so yes, it could be done. But not now. (And no, I have no ETA.)

[daSpud]

The original design of the cache provides for such a way, so yes, it could be done. But not now. (And no, I have no ETA.)

Will it go on the "todo" list from here or does it need to be entered somewhere else first?

Thanks, Spud

[nas8e9]

The original design of the cache provides for such a way, so yes, it could be done. But not now. (And no, I have no ETA.)

Will it go on the "todo" list from here or does it need to be entered somewhere else first?

Thanks, Spud

"admin" is the forum username of XYplorer's sole developer. Once it has his attention, it doesn't need entering anywhere else.

[admin]

One problem with a full data cache: it becomes stale quickly, resp. you never know if the data are stale (outdated) or fresh. The current cache is always fresh. This advantage is so big, that I don't see a full data cache coming here.

[daSpud]

One problem with a full data cache: it becomes stale quickly, resp. you never know if the data are stale (outdated) or fresh. The current cache is always fresh. This advantage is so big, that I don't see a full data cache coming here.

When it takes 30 seconds to gather the search data (whole disk) I am not so concerned with freshness.

I realized while writing this that I could use dual pane and get close to what I want. Thanks,

Spud

[admin]

One problem with a full data cache: it becomes stale quickly, resp. you never know if the data are stale (outdated) or fresh. The current cache is always fresh. This advantage is so big, that I don't see a full data cache coming here.

When it takes 30 seconds to gather the search data (whole disk) I am not so concerned with freshness.

How big are your search results?

[daSpud]

One problem with a full data cache: it becomes stale quickly, resp. you never know if the data are stale (outdated) or fresh. The current cache is always fresh. This advantage is so big, that I don't see a full data cache coming here.

When it takes 30 seconds to gather the search data (whole disk) I am not so concerned with freshness.

How big are your search results?

the results might be 1500 records, but the disk contains 200,000 to 400,000 files.

[admin]

One problem with a full data cache: it becomes stale quickly, resp. you never know if the data are stale (outdated) or fresh. The current cache is always fresh. This advantage is so big, that I don't see a full data cache coming here.

When it takes 30 seconds to gather the search data (whole disk) I am not so concerned with freshness.

How big are your search results?

the results might be 1500 records, but the disk contains 200,000 to 400,000 files.

30 seconds is very long for 1500 records. Any idea why they take so long? Network locations?

[daSpud]

One problem with a full data cache: it becomes stale quickly, resp. you never know if the data are stale (outdated) or fresh. The current cache is always fresh. This advantage is so big, that I don't see a full data cache coming here.

When it takes 30 seconds to gather the search data (whole disk) I am not so concerned with freshness.

How big are your search results?

the results might be 1500 records, but the disk contains 200,000 to 400,000 files.

30 seconds is very long for 1500 records. Any idea why they take so long? Network locations?

In order to get the size and date information to screen out the results it must look at each of the 200-400,000 files. I actually thought 30 seconds was pretty good. Yes, it is a networked drive on a 1GB local net.