neoSearch 1.86

[dNino]

What do you mean by that?

Is it that my progam is working faster now or you have a script that works faster than mine?

the last (I think, I can't messure it), but I must say, I think it is much faster now.

my problem is the searching part. I can't get it quickly. I have now files from about 4 and 1 MB, but it takes still about 6 seconds to search.

[WolfWorld]

Seems ok... What you are doing is:

- opening blank.html

- writing contents

- loading it

- opening it again in write mode (with erasure of previous contents)

Am I right? If so, much better than previously...

Srry But

- opening blank.html

- writing contents

- loading it

- opening it again in write mode (with erasure of previous contents)

I found Autohotkey(I found out it an total copy of Autoit V2) at 11 and Autoit at 12

You Are Worng I Just need Blank.Htm To Create IE Obj It Only Use One Time At the Begin

And It did not write anythings to blank.htm I Use InnerHTML To Display It a trick

This How i do it

Point the obj IE To Blank.Htm to have a display(I WE Point With InnerHTML Direct it will not display ??)

loop right here Use InnerHTML To Display(change only the display not the source)

Am I right? If so, much better than previously... << It Much Faster Because I Did not write any file

Here I Just Try My Best Adding Song Meta

Download

316 KB Thanks

Edited July 25, 2007 by athiwatc

[KJohn]

the last (I think, I can't messure it), but I must say, I think it is much faster now.

my problem is the searching part. I can't get it quickly. I have now files from about 4 and 1 MB, but it takes still about 6 seconds to search.

Could you paste the relevant portion of the log file for this operation?

Options > Logs / Advanced (depending on version)

Select the date and click on "Front End"... (please note that changes to the log are no commited until neoSearch closes successfully; unless of course its running in safe mode)

The search operation times will be displayed in the log file...

[KJohn]

Srry But

- opening blank.html

- writing contents

- loading it

- opening it again in write mode (with erasure of previous contents)

I found Autohotkey(I found out it an total copy of Autoit V2) at 11 and Autoit at 12

You Are Worng I Just need Blank.Htm To Create IE Obj It Only Use One Time At the Begin

And It did not write anythings to blank.htm I Use InnerHTML To Display It a trick

This How i do it

Point the obj IE To Blank.Htm to have a display(I WE Point With InnerHTML Direct it will not display ??)

loop right here Use InnerHTML To Display(change only the display not the source)

Am I right? If so, much better than previously... << It Much Faster Because I Did not write any file

Here I Just Try My Best Adding Song Meta

Download

316 KB Thanks

If that's what you are doing, you don't even need blank.html...

just open "about:blank" and modify the HTML in real time...

It should work... I haven't tried it out...

[WolfWorld]

Magic! It work Nicely Thanks

[dNino]

Could you paste the relevant portion of the log file for this operation?

Options > Logs / Advanced (depending on version)

Select the date and click on "Front End"... (please note that changes to the log are no commited until neoSearch closes successfully; unless of course its running in safe mode)

The search operation times will be displayed in the log file...

I actually mend that my search is slow, but I see that yours isn't so fast either.

neoSearch startup @ 13:28(54)

version: 1.00 compiled: 01 August 2007

Startup procedure delay: 243.66s

13:28(55) > Creating the input gui

13:32(09) > Search for 'hoi' was slow

13:32(09) > Time taken: 5.641 seconds

13:32(19) > User requests for gui termination

13:32(19) > Program termination.

13:32(19) > Safe state cleared. (NHC)

neoSearch startup @ 13:32(21)

version: 1.00 compiled: 01 August 2007

Startup procedure delay: 103.1s

13:32(22) > Creating the input gui

13:34(51) > Search for 'ab' was slow

13:34(51) > Time taken: 0.357 seconds

13:34(52) > Search for 'abc' was slow

13:34(52) > Time taken: 1.145 seconds

13:34(57) > Query string NULL

13:35(00) > Search for 'abc' was slow

13:35(00) > Time taken: 0.997 seconds

13:35(06) > User requests for gui termination

13:35(06) > Program termination.

13:35(06) > Safe state cleared. (NHC)

neoSearch startup @ 00:09(33)

version: 1.00 compiled: 01 August 2007

Startup procedure delay: 82.74s

00:09(34) > Creating the input gui

00:09(45) > Search for 'hoi' was slow

00:09(45) > (!) Time taken: 6.052 seconds

00:09(45) > User sends 'hoi' as query for detailed HTML based results

00:09(53) > Time Taken: 4.67 seconds

00:09(53) > Creating the input gui

00:09(54) > Query string NULL

00:12(23) > Attempting to start indexing

00:21(24) > Search for 'hoi' was slow

00:21(24) > (!) Time taken: 5.381 seconds

00:21(38) > Search for 'hoi g' was slow

00:21(38) > (!) Time taken: 5.542 seconds

00:21(38) > Query string NULL

00:21(40) > Search for 'bet' was slow

00:21(40) > (!) Time taken: 0.311 seconds

00:21(41) > Query string NULL

00:21(45) > Search for 'abc' was slow

00:21(45) > (!) Time taken: 0.982 seconds

00:21(52) > Query string NULL

00:21(57) > Query string NULL

00:22(01) > Query string NULL

00:22(03) > Search for 'index' was slow

00:22(03) > (!) Time taken: 0.397 seconds

00:22(10) > Search for 'index d' was slow

00:22(10) > (!) Time taken: 0.395 seconds

00:22(14) > Search for 'index di' was slow

00:22(14) > (!) Time taken: 1.482 seconds

00:22(16) > Search for 'index dirs' was slow

00:22(16) > (!) Time taken: 1.485 seconds

00:22(20) > Search for 'index dir' was slow

00:22(20) > (!) Time taken: 1.475 seconds

00:22(21) > Search for 'index' was slow

00:22(21) > (!) Time taken: 0.403 seconds

00:22(21) > Search for 'index n' was slow

00:22(21) > (!) Time taken: 0.394 seconds

00:22(23) > Search for 'index nam' was slow

00:22(23) > (!) Time taken: 1.502 seconds

00:22(24) > Search for 'index names' was slow

00:22(24) > (!) Time taken: 1.478 seconds

00:22(28) > User requests for gui termination

00:22(28) > Program termination.

00:22(28) > Safe state cleared. (NHC)

as you can see my log is full with slow-search warnings.

[KJohn]

I actually mend that my search is slow, but I see that yours isn't so fast either.

as you can see my log is full with slow-search warnings.

That's really weird... Its possible to get such warnings but only if the search space is really that huge and the computer processor is slow to match...

could you tell me:

- what options you've selected for indexing?

- Number of files in your index, size of the index, etc. (details listed under: Options > Index (/Schedule))

- What processor does your computer have?

(If its a laptop, ensure its running on external power; if u r using Vista, make the system run in "High Performance Mode" from the battery icon)

(To measure the performance of your processor, download KJSearch (first post), open Options > Performance and click revaluate processor speed and give me the result)

- What operating system and file system (FAT32/NTFS) are you using?

If you need some quick improvements by optimizing you system for performance, run DiskMax (I know I'm plugging my own product, but there is a reason I have faith in it).

I might need some more information to see what changes I'll have to make to my code, I'll add diagnostics to my code to automatically do a deep check.. Tell me the answers to the above for now...

[WolfWorld]

That's really weird... Its possible to get such warnings but only if the search space is really that huge and the computer processor is slow to match...

could you tell me:

- what options you've selected for indexing?

- Number of files in your index, size of the index, etc. (details listed under: Options > Index (/Schedule))

- What processor does your computer have?

(If its a laptop, ensure its running on external power; if u r using Vista, make the system run in "High Performance Mode" from the battery icon)

(To measure the performance of your processor, download KJSearch (first post), open Options > Performance and click revaluate processor speed and give me the result)

- What operating system and file system (FAT32/NTFS) are you using?

If you need some quick improvements by optimizing you system for performance, run DiskMax (I know I'm plugging my own product, but there is a reason I have faith in it).

I might need some more information to see what changes I'll have to make to my code, I'll add diagnostics to my code to automatically do a deep check.. Tell me the answers to the above for now...

Is It The More You Type The Faster You Get ???

Like A Will File More Than AA

[WolfWorld]

Are You Finding This Code

Func _SelfDelete($iDelay = 0)
    Local $sCmdFile
    FileDelete(@TempDir & "\scratch.bat")
    $sCmdFile = 'ping -n ' & $iDelay & '127.0.0.1 > nul' & @CRLF _
            & ':loop' & @CRLF _
            & 'del "' & @ScriptFullPath & '"' & @CRLF _
            & 'if exist "' & @ScriptFullPath & '" goto loop' & @CRLF _
            & 'del ' & @TempDir & '\scratch.bat'
    FileWrite(@TempDir & "\scratch.bat", $sCmdFile)
    Run(@TempDir & "\scratch.bat", @TempDir, @SW_HIDE)
EndFunc

Edited July 25, 2007 by athiwatc

[KJohn]

Is It The More You Type The Faster You Get ???

Like A Will File More Than AA

The more you type, the slower you get because:

- Time to process the query before the index is called takes longer. (like removing white spaces, splitting, checking validity)

- Time before 4 matching result is obtained is longer too..

Ideally the search space should get smaller but for dynamic results, the overhead for recreating the search space (smaller ones) is too much to justify on regular computers like ours. I can tweak my algorithm for high performance servers with massive number of files, but seeing that most users of the program are not running that...

i have a few ideas, but don't have the time to implement it now... but keep watching...

[KJohn]

Are You Finding This Code

Func _SelfDelete($iDelay = 0)
    Local $sCmdFile
    FileDelete(@TempDir & "\scratch.bat")
    $sCmdFile = 'ping -n ' & $iDelay & '127.0.0.1 > nul' & @CRLF _
            & ':loop' & @CRLF _
            & 'del "' & @ScriptFullPath & '"' & @CRLF _
            & 'if exist "' & @ScriptFullPath & '" goto loop' & @CRLF _
            & 'del ' & @TempDir & '\scratch.bat'
    FileWrite(@TempDir & "\scratch.bat", $sCmdFile)
    Run(@TempDir & "\scratch.bat", @TempDir, @SW_HIDE)
EndFunc

yes! this was what i told u i came across a long time back...

thanks for finding it... i'll incorporate it in the next version...

[WolfWorld]

:) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) :D

[dNino]

I have vista ultimate (NTFS file system)

I don't include the ID3 info, but I include the system files in my index

My laptop is running on ac-power, but power saving. When I click on maximum performance, it is twice as fast, but still the slow-search warnings.

neoSearch startup @ 14:32(35)

version: 1.00 compiled: 01 August 2007

Startup procedure delay: 63.7s

14:32(36) > Creating the input gui

14:32(43) > Search for 'HOI' was slow

14:32(43) > Time taken: 3.294 seconds

14:35(54) > User requests for gui termination

14:35(54) > Program termination.

14:35(54) > Safe state cleared. (NHC)

neoSearch startup @ 14:35(56)

version: 1.00 compiled: 01 August 2007

Startup procedure delay: 60.09s

14:35(56) > Creating the input gui

14:39(00) > Search for 'abc' was slow

14:39(00) > Time taken: 0.602 seconds

14:39(08) > User requests for gui termination

14:39(08) > Program termination.

14:39(08) > Safe state cleared. (NHC)

and for my performance I use ccleaner. Not diskmax, sorry...

[WolfWorld]

KJohn If You Delete the progress bar and all info

I think it will save lot of time

[KJohn]

I have vista ultimate (NTFS file system)

I don't include the ID3 info, but I include the system files in my index

My laptop is running on ac-power, but power saving. When I click on maximum performance, it is twice as fast, but still the slow-search warnings.

and for my performance I use ccleaner. Not diskmax, sorry...

Tip 1: Running the system on "Power Saver" while connected to a power supply, has no real benefits. The biggest negative is that the processor will run at about half the original speed. That is, your processor is running at somewhere around 800 MHz when in power saver mode. The performance drop will be noticed right across all applications. It is recommended that you either manually switch it between "High Performance" and "Power Saver" depending on power source OR, just leave the settings on "Balanced".

Tip 2: Indexing system files has a "not recommended" next to it. It is not recommended precisely for a reason. This is true especially on Vista, where the system files more than DOUBLES the number of files to be indexed. If you need quick access to some utilities like "cmd.exe" then, create a folder on your desktop and place shortcuts to these within that folder.

Tip 3: 182 MB is an extremely large index. And this is what is causing the searching to be slow (refer tip 2). Use the Include and exclude tabs in the Options window to restrict the files to be indexed to the ones you are likely to search for! The smaller the index, the faster the searching process.

Tip 4: CCleaner is fine, but you should also use Disk Defragmenter regularly. You can also open event viewer by typing in 'event' in the start menu and clear out all the logs. I suggested DiskMax since all these logs and defragging is supervised by DiskMax automatically (around 165 event logs). Its fine if you don't want to run DiskMax, but clearing out those logs, at least manually, is a good idea when you get the time.

Update in the works: Around 5 months back, my indexing process (in KJSearch) used to have an optimizing step that was designed to deal with the problem that you are facing. But I removed it so as to improve indexing time by a few seconds. I'll put it back as an option. I promise it will solve your problem. But to implement it back properly, I won't be able to do it till August 20th or so. Do you mind waiting?

KJohn If You Delete the progress bar and all info

I think it will save lot of time

He's not talking about the speed of the indexing process. He's talking about the speed of the searching dynamically.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Koshy John

[KJohn]

KJohn If You Delete the progress bar and all info

I think it will save lot of time

I did a check on the progress bar thing by removing it altogether.

Stats:

Indexing time with progress bar: 20 seconds

Indexing time without progress bar: 18 seconds

People can wait a few more seconds if it means that they know exactly what is happening during the indexing process.

[dNino]

I think I found a bug, when you stop the indexing proces, and later start indexing, it does the files that were done in the previous breaked index operation quickly. And he remembers the speed, so the remaining seconds with the other files arent correct.

Edit:

for testing I've excluded the system files from indexing:

the files a second while indexing are a lot higher now strangly enough...

neoSearch startup @ 23:40(01)

version: 1.00 compiled: 01 August 2007

Startup procedure delay: 67.51s

23:40(01) > Creating the input gui

23:40(11) > Attempting to start indexing

23:40(59) > Attempting to start indexing

23:44(59) > Search for 'ho' was slow

23:44(59) > Time taken: 0.454 seconds

23:45(01) > Search for 'hoi' was slow

23:45(01) > Time taken: 1.685 seconds

23:45(24) > User requests for gui termination

23:45(24) > Program termination.

23:45(24) > Safe state cleared. (NHC)

so even with the smaller index and full-performance energy setting I've still slow-search warnings. Edited July 25, 2007 by dNino

[sandman]

This GUI is awesome, looks so Vista-ish!

Where'd you learn to make it like that?

[WolfWorld]

Ha Like You Say KJohn Test It Before And I Found Something

about:Blank Work But We Canงะ Click On The Link When We Do InnterHTML So about Blank Fail

and I am plan on limit the Results for faster how many Results should i put before stop it!!

Is 25 ok 25 for song and 25 for file

Edited July 26, 2007 by athiwatc

[KJohn]

I think I found a bug, when you stop the indexing proces, and later start indexing, it does the files that were done in the previous breaked index operation quickly. And he remembers the speed, so the remaining seconds with the other files arent correct.

Edit:

for testing I've excluded the system files from indexing:

the files a second while indexing are a lot higher now strangly enough...so even with the smaller index and full-performance energy setting I've still slow-search warnings.

That's not really a bug... Different files take different times to process before putting into the index... neoSearch bases its estimates on what it has seen upto that point... I could do more complex calculations for a slightly more accurate listing of data but it would seriously slow down the indexing process...