Is indexing for Desktop Search, OverKill?

[SpectateSwamp]

All my textual data from the last 10 years, is just 70 Megabytes.
A non indexing application can search that in just over 4 seconds.

The net search Co's have trotted out their indexed searches
which are complex database monstrosities designed for millions
of times, that amount of data.

A lifetimes reading, can fit on a DVD (4.7 Gig)
It would be silly, to archive and search info, you have never read.

[thecoalman]

It would be silly, to archive and search info, you have never read.

I don't understand your point, it may be unusable to you but for others it's a huge timesaver. Let's say you can gain access to the database here which is nearly 2GB's, you now have in you possesion one of the largest single archives pertaining to digital video available. Without indexing your search time is now approaching 2 minutes.

[Faustus]

Indexing makes a lot of sense. You don't have to have read something for it be useful.

Meta Data is a good example.

[SpectateSwamp]

It would be silly, to archive and search info, you have never read.

I don't understand your point, it may be unusable to you but for others it's a huge timesaver. Let's say you can gain access to the database here which is nearly 2GB's, you now have in you possesion one of the largest single archives pertaining to digital video available. Without indexing your search time is now approaching 2 minutes.

Not quite 2 minutes. If there are multiple matches, some will be displayed immediately.
And they will be in context. Yours won't. It's ALWAYS the context that you search for.
The 2GB example is data you would probably want to search then read, search then read.
Put that 2GB file on a DVD along with a good Desktop Search and you are portable. I don't
think indexed search can run from a DVD?

[SpectateSwamp]

Indexing makes a lot of sense. You don't have to have read something for it be useful.

Meta Data is a good example.

Oh, I can see where I wouldn't mind a peek at the coal man's 2GB file, indexed or not.


Meta Data does have to be pulled from the file.

My preference, is not to bury the text in non text files.
All my meta data is in simple text files that accompany the
picture or video files.

[Faustus]

All my meta data is in simple text files that accompany the
picture or video files.

That would create like a thousand little files. Indexing is better.

[SpectateSwamp]

All my meta data is in simple text files that accompany the
picture or video files.

That would create like a thousand little files. Indexing is better.

Nope, just 1 text file for the 5000+ family album pictures.
1 line describing the picture and 1 line with the path.

Don't force people to put textual info into pictures, music & video files
I don't want to know how to do that.

[thecoalman]

Don't force people to put textual info into pictures, music & video files
I don't want to know how to do that.

:P http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/

Features
Supports EXIF (up to 2.2) and IPTC data in JPEG and TIFF files
Reading and displaying of makernotes by Canon, Casio, Fuji, Minolta, Nikon and Olympus
Backing up, restoring and comparing metadata (EXIF/IPTC)
Editing of metadata (for JPEG files only)
Inserting EXIF data from THM files (for JPEG files only)
Creating/inserting/rotating EXIF thumbnails (for JPEG files only)
Customizeable view of metadata
Export/import of metadata (CSV, Canto Cumulus, descript.ion files)
Renaming and redating with various formats
Lossless rotation (for JPEG files only)
Cropping (with aspect ratio)
Watermarks
Slideshow

[SpectateSwamp]

Don't force people to put textual info into pictures, music & video files
I don't want to know how to do that.

:P http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/

Features
Supports EXIF (up to 2.2) and IPTC data in JPEG and TIFF files
Reading and displaying of makernotes by Canon, Casio, Fuji, Minolta, Nikon and Olympus
Backing up, restoring and comparing metadata (EXIF/IPTC)
Editing of metadata (for JPEG files only)
Inserting EXIF data from THM files (for JPEG files only)
Creating/inserting/rotating EXIF thumbnails (for JPEG files only)
Customizeable view of metadata
Export/import of metadata (CSV, Canto Cumulus, descript.ion files)
Renaming and redating with various formats
Lossless rotation (for JPEG files only)
Cropping (with aspect ratio)
Watermarks
Slideshow

I said I didn't want to know that.

What percent of percent of existing jpg's would be encoded?
1/2 of a percent maybe. Wouldn't that limit people from shooting
and shooting pictures. When they have to encode and encode?

My excuse is the family album was done 6 years ago. I only
learned how to encode. Just now.

[thecoalman]

What percent of percent of existing jpg's would be encoded?

Do you mean which ones would have exif data? Depends on the device they were made with and that any software that touched them supports maintian ing the data but every digital camera would have this information stored now. Right down to whether the flash fired or not.

[SpectateSwamp]

What percent of percent of existing jpg's would be encoded?

Do you mean which ones would have exif data? Depends on the device they were made with and that any software that touched them supports maintian ing the data but every digital camera would have this information stored now. Right down to whether the flash fired or not.

I should extract the exif data, when cataloging JPEG files.
I use the meta data when cataloging mp3 music files.
Maybe I have been too focused on digital video.

on another topic. Do you ever find neet stuff in the coal?
I found dinosaur skin imprints a couple years back.

[thecoalman]

In the coal itself no, I only get to see the processed product.... At most you might see some flecks of "fools gold". I'm no scientist but anthracite is so dense I'd assume any remnants have been obliterated. It's not like soft coal that breaks easy. It has more a consistency of glass. In the rock surrounding the coal they frequently find fossils, ferns especially.