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

[admin]

I thought we were talking about the cached search results? 30 secs would be very long for 1500 cached records.

[daSpud]

I thought we were talking about the cached search results? 30 secs would be very long for 1500 cached records.

Whoops I was not talking about cached searches. The cache only stores the name. It has to look up all the rest of the details. It would not be too bad for 500 or maybe 1500, but sometimes my searches yield 10,000+ responses. I would not want those cached in an INI file and it is not easy to switch from cached to uncached on individual searches.

In terms of stale-ness, cached is really no better than storing the whole search result in a memory queue. There can be new files added (or deleted) that match the search criteria so the cache would be out of date too.

[admin]

I thought we were talking about the cached search results? 30 secs would be very long for 1500 cached records.

Whoops I was not talking about cached searches. The cache only stores the name. It has to look up all the rest of the details. It would not be too bad for 500 or maybe 1500, but sometimes my searches yield 10,000+ responses. I would not want those cached in an INI file and it is not easy to switch from cached to uncached on individual searches.

In terms of stale-ness, cached is really no better than storing the whole search result in a memory queue. There can be new files added (or deleted) that match the search criteria so the cache would be out of date too.

OK, searches over the whole system with 10,000+ responses are extreme cases. A full cache would be a reasonable solution here. But currently not on my immediate list.

BTW, deleted files are discovered and removed from the cache when loading a cache. New files added indeed would be missing from the cached results.