BTW, AutoFocus is also base partially on Lucene so that should make it quite familiar to you...It looked fairly interesting until I read the hardware requirements section...
All the best.-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 09:14 AM)
That's exactly what I'm getting at. I don't know of any other tool that can search through, e.g., ACDSee's database. However, any photo album app will allow you to save tags into EXIF or IPTC metadata in the images themselves. And since this is a standard, any desktop search app worth its salt can access it.Some people are just too lazy to add half a dozen tags to each and every image they store on their computer. Do you really do that? :o
Having done that, now I can use my search app to find, say, "Mexico 2008" and get all my related photos, emails exchanged with the travel agent, and the AVI of the time-lapse sunset I made. Sure, all of these things are handled through different apps. But the ability to search like this allows me to have all of the materials related to a given project in front of me at once. (Which is why I also think that the Windows way of organizing files under "My Documents" in app-centric folders is idiotic)-CWuestefeld (February 10, 2009, 08:46 AM)
Open source people sometimes amaze me. You refuse to use any such program (even though, as I noted, there's a standard way for them to store their data in most cases), despite how much good it might do you.Maybe I should also mention the second reason why I don't use albums and the likes: I don't have too many pictures on my computer (a few hundred or so, rarely updated), and I stopped collecting music a long time ago (last.fm anyone?), so there's not much to organize here. This is not too amazing an explanation, is it?-CWuestefeld (February 10, 2009, 08:46 AM)
Greetings.Just give me a second to check the Lucene documentation... ah, here it is: http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/queryparsersyntax.html
What would be the required syntax if one tries to find documents that contain certain strings?
As much as I knew
"word1 word2"
was suppose to that job whereas
word1 word2
is the equivalent of AND, do please correct me if I am wrong.-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 02:56 AM)
I agree with you when e-mails are involved but their respective attachments are completely different thing, in this case you do need a DtS software.Now I understand :)-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
Creating and maintaining hierachies takes time, that'a a fact and probably the most important reason for using DtS. Because I don't want to spend time for that the rest my answers follow:You seem to be the kind of user who doesn't clean up his folders very often and who then uses full hard drive desktop search to keep that mess under control. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it this way. (I'm the kind of user who's folders are highly organized and who only uses desktop search to access stuff where the hierarchical system doesn't help much, i.e. documents.)
a.Images - can be found in many places therefore I use DtS to find them all and then I view them as thumbnails...and thus the decision is easiest
b. Music - here you can, generally search by filename...or metadata/tags. Or, can be leftovers(.ac3 files) from video conversions(DVD->.avi) that, in time, can stack up heavily...
c. Videos - when you use several sources for getting them on your computer they can also get lost in various places, especially when you have more than 1 HDD. For now I have more than 60 movies on my computer...mpeg/avi/iso/vob, you name it.
I also do not think that the typical savvy DtS user is searching mainly for the above but rather for documents with a certain content, at least this is my case. My search ratio is 95%/5% for content/a,v,p.-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
I gave it a try for a folder with less than 500 indexable documents and I got 2 messages:The Java Virtual Machine in which DocFetcher is running has a memory cap, and your file was too big for that. The manual explains how to raise that cap. However, I admit that this error message should've been more helpful.
Needed 19 bytes to create the next chunk header, but only found 4 bytes, ignoring rest of data
### Skipped: Not enough memory left in the Java Virtual Machine.-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
Also I didn't get what I was expecting from a Boolean search:The first case is AND, the second one is OR. Well, the preview highlighting wasn't fully implemented... :-[ Thanks for pointing this out.
search:"word1 word2"
returned a diffent set(number) of documents compared to
search:word1 word2
but in preview in both cases I saw enlightened both search terms(???).-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
So, for now I wish you all the best but I stick to AutofocusTo each his own. :Thmbsup:-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
Considering that you can assign tags (apart from other info) to several media formats and save them within the file, I don't think it does really make more sense. What's more, several apps used to view or manipulate media can parse that data and save it in a local database (only accessible by that app, though). Whether you bother to use those methods is another story.Okay, good point. Thanks for your answer.
Both methods are not mutually exclusive, and I use them without problems. Depending of the moment, it makes more sense to use one or another, but I don't think there's an optimal solution.
Considering that you can assign tags (apart from other info) to several media formats and save them within the file, I don't think it does really make more sense. What's more, several apps used to view or manipulate media can parse that data and save it in a local database (only accessible by that app, though). Whether you bother to use those methods is another story.
Both methods are not mutually exclusive, and I use them without problems. Depending of the moment, it makes more sense to use one or another, but I don't think there's an optimal solution.-Lashiec (February 09, 2009, 06:42 AM)