Coffeehouse Thread

31 posts

Windows 7 search confirmed to be slow in RC

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • androidi

    I just thought it was some left over issue from upgrading from Vista but looks like others in e7 blog are reporting the same:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/06/17/improving-audio-glitch-resilience-in-windows-7.aspx

     "Microsoft needs to separate real-time search including real-time content search and indexed search. The last real-time search which was fast compared to Windows Search 4.x was in Windows 2000/XP's Classic search."

    There is a mod to XP standard search which disables it looking inside files/content. If the speed of this search is compared to the Windows 7 RC search outside of the indexed locations and also not looking inside files/content then it's very apparent that something is slowing down the Win 7 search. Even on a relatively high spec machine it appears that for something that should by all logic be bounded by disk performance, it might not entirely be.

     

    ed: removed a quote which didn't make sense.

  • blowdart

    Hmm what's the point if it's not indexing file internals?

     

  • androidi

    blowdart said:

    Hmm what's the point if it's not indexing file internals?

     

    For example, the data could be of such type that it doesn't make sense to look into the files or maybe the data is in external drive that's only intermittently connected. Or the data might be organized the in a way that quickest way of finding something is to search by file or folder names.

  • AndyC

    androidi said:
    blowdart said:
    *snip*

    For example, the data could be of such type that it doesn't make sense to look into the files or maybe the data is in external drive that's only intermittently connected. Or the data might be organized the in a way that quickest way of finding something is to search by file or folder names.

    Except that iFilters solve the problems of only looking in files in a way that makes sense (or at least they should), the external drive thing doesn't really count (unless the index is on an external/slow drive) and looking for a filename in an index is no different to looking for some text in an index.

    I can't say I've had any problems with search in 7, it's lightning fast (assuming you are using indexed locations). I foyu really think the old way is somehow better, however, you can always store your data in a non-indexed folder and spend your life waiting for stuff to get found....

  • contextfree

    I find W7 search to be a vast improvement over either Vista (about which search was my biggest complaint) or XP.  As for not wanting to look inside files, can't you simply search for "name:foo" instead of "foo"?

  • magicalclick

    No comment since I don't use search at all. I still don't see why. I can find my stuff without search just fine.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • contextfree

    magicalclick said:

    No comment since I don't use search at all. I still don't see why. I can find my stuff without search just fine.

    Even if all your stuff is impeccably organized and you have constant total recall of where you put everything (which I doubt is true for most people, myself included):

    1. not everything on a computer is placed by you -- you may be looking for files created by programs etc.,
    2. search doesn't only allow you to find individual files, it allows you to query for classes of files e.g. "everything larger than 1MB", "everything last modified in January 2009", etc.
    3. even if you know exactly what you're looking for and exactly where it is, it can STILL sometimes be faster to navigate to it via search than node-by-node through the tree, or by typing the whole path.

  • androidi

    AndyC said:
    androidi said:
    *snip*

    Except that iFilters solve the problems of only looking in files in a way that makes sense (or at least they should), the external drive thing doesn't really count (unless the index is on an external/slow drive) and looking for a filename in an index is no different to looking for some text in an index.

    I can't say I've had any problems with search in 7, it's lightning fast (assuming you are using indexed locations). I foyu really think the old way is somehow better, however, you can always store your data in a non-indexed folder and spend your life waiting for stuff to get found....

    You make it sound like indexing should be enabled by default everywhere. Why it isn't then? I'm not going to bother* with indexing external drives because I haven't seen any mention that the indexing was designed this scenario in mind. For all I know, taking the drive and modifying it elsewhere when the index was still being built before detaching it could either lead to a restart of indexing from scratch or incorrect results. I don't want to make a 2nd guess about the results, the results are either always correct even in edge cases (modifying the disk with a disk editor could be exception to this as it's not mounting the volume) or the indexing stays off.

    PS. All my drives are external, with the indexing only enabled in the system partition.

    * I assume the indexing folks have already bothered to test their product and saw that it's not fit to enable it except in few places on the system drive with assumption that system drive is internal.

  • AndyC

    androidi said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    You make it sound like indexing should be enabled by default everywhere. Why it isn't then? I'm not going to bother* with indexing external drives because I haven't seen any mention that the indexing was designed this scenario in mind. For all I know, taking the drive and modifying it elsewhere when the index was still being built before detaching it could either lead to a restart of indexing from scratch or incorrect results. I don't want to make a 2nd guess about the results, the results are either always correct even in edge cases (modifying the disk with a disk editor could be exception to this as it's not mounting the volume) or the indexing stays off.

    PS. All my drives are external, with the indexing only enabled in the system partition.

    * I assume the indexing folks have already bothered to test their product and saw that it's not fit to enable it except in few places on the system drive with assumption that system drive is internal.

    androidi said:
    You make it sound like indexing should be enabled by default everywhere. Why it isn't then?

    Because it would be a bit pointless and wasteful to create an index of stuff you aren't ever going to search for?

    androidi said:
    All my drives are external, with the indexing only enabled in the system partition.

    Well if you're keeping all your data in non-indexed location then obviously it's going to be slow to search, just as it was in XP. Do you have a point? What's the point in dismissing Windows search functionality as "not fit to enable" if you haven't even tried it out yet?

  • stevo_

    Am I right in your argument being that windows search is an unfit product because it isn't enabled by default in your scenario, and that to enable it you might actually have to open indexing options (available via search), and modify the indexed locations?

    You expect windows search to index every single thing it sees?

  • androidi

    stevo_ said:

    Am I right in your argument being that windows search is an unfit product because it isn't enabled by default in your scenario, and that to enable it you might actually have to open indexing options (available via search), and modify the indexed locations?

    You expect windows search to index every single thing it sees?

    As far as I know, there already is an index of the file and folder names. It's called "MFT". And if I'm using the search built into Windows shell to find files from the MFT I'd say that I'm using Windows search. The whole point of the new/secondary index (WDS/WS4.0) is that if the user is interested to quickly find something about *FILE CONTENTS* and since I'm not I'm going to stick with the MFT index. But in Windows 7 there appears to be a serious bottleneck in searching the MFT and it's not the 7200 rpm disk but the CPU! So yes by this argument, Windows search is unfit indeed.

  • AndyC

    androidi said:
    stevo_ said:
    *snip*

    As far as I know, there already is an index of the file and folder names. It's called "MFT". And if I'm using the search built into Windows shell to find files from the MFT I'd say that I'm using Windows search. The whole point of the new/secondary index (WDS/WS4.0) is that if the user is interested to quickly find something about *FILE CONTENTS* and since I'm not I'm going to stick with the MFT index. But in Windows 7 there appears to be a serious bottleneck in searching the MFT and it's not the 7200 rpm disk but the CPU! So yes by this argument, Windows search is unfit indeed.

    The MFT is designed to be hierarchically traversed, so that you can get to a specific location quickly. It's nothing like an index that can be used for arbitrary searches, which is why you should be using the WDS index which is designed to do that.

  • PaoloM

    androidi said:
    stevo_ said:
    *snip*

    As far as I know, there already is an index of the file and folder names. It's called "MFT". And if I'm using the search built into Windows shell to find files from the MFT I'd say that I'm using Windows search. The whole point of the new/secondary index (WDS/WS4.0) is that if the user is interested to quickly find something about *FILE CONTENTS* and since I'm not I'm going to stick with the MFT index. But in Windows 7 there appears to be a serious bottleneck in searching the MFT and it's not the 7200 rpm disk but the CPU! So yes by this argument, Windows search is unfit indeed.

    The MFT is not an index, it's a table of contents. The internal representation is not suitable for searches.

  • magicalclick

    contextfree said:
    magicalclick said:
    *snip*

    Even if all your stuff is impeccably organized and you have constant total recall of where you put everything (which I doubt is true for most people, myself included):

    1. not everything on a computer is placed by you -- you may be looking for files created by programs etc.,
    2. search doesn't only allow you to find individual files, it allows you to query for classes of files e.g. "everything larger than 1MB", "everything last modified in January 2009", etc.
    3. even if you know exactly what you're looking for and exactly where it is, it can STILL sometimes be faster to navigate to it via search than node-by-node through the tree, or by typing the whole path.

    I don't think I need those daily. I have bad memory, so I don't memorize where I store stuff. My file paths are normally really straight forward for easy nevigation. Not sure why I even care to to search last modified files. It is not like you can trace virus damange since I can easily change creation/modified/read date of a file.

    Anyway, I am sure some people are hardcore search users, just not me. But first, most people should clean their 60 icons on their desktop.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • WindowsGeek

    I'm new to this Forum/Board.. and I wanted to make a comment about Search.. and I hope the MS personnel who are listening will do something about this:

    Background- There seems to be an opinion among MS personnel (no doubt backed up by research) that indexed searching of a limited number of directories is the best search tool one could ever desire.  (I'm sorry, I don't really mean to sound sarcastic.. ) But, I just don't agree with that point of view.

    -- Yes, indexed searching of a limited number of directories is a great search technology for files stored in the indexed directories...

    BUT,

    1, Why change the user interface so dramatically?- such a change seems to assume that nobody needs the old user interface.

    2. Why make it so hard to initiate a search for files in some folder other than "C:\Users\MyName\MyDocuments"?  Could be another user told me to find the info in the following folder "C:\Users\HisName\MyDocuments"... Could be the file(s) are on a USB stick, or a USB hard drive, or on a shared drive elsewhere on the network...  These don't need to be indexed, but the user interface should make it easy for me to search there

    3. What if I just want to look for all JPG files.. or all MP3 files.. or all XLS files.. AND, I have some directories which are copied over from an older computer.. and I keep them separate because I don't always need to look for one of these files.. but sometimes I do?

    5. What if I want to look for a large photograph file (>10 MB) from 3-4 years ago, previously on another computer and I can't remember if it is a JPG, PNG, PSD or PSP file?  Or maybe I want to go back to the original RAW file.  It could be on any of my disks.  Your new user interface "stinks" as far as trying to do such a search.

    My recommendation:

    1. Keep the indexed searching- it's good for its narrow purpose.

    2. Modify the user interface to easily allow additional search parameters (like the XP search dialog)- date range, file size range, possible file locations, file extensions, etc.

    "This is my final answer!"

    Otherwise I may have to seek out alternative file search tools.

    Thank you for your prompt action!

         WindowsGeek

     

  • PaoloM

    WindowsGeek said:

    I'm new to this Forum/Board.. and I wanted to make a comment about Search.. and I hope the MS personnel who are listening will do something about this:

    Background- There seems to be an opinion among MS personnel (no doubt backed up by research) that indexed searching of a limited number of directories is the best search tool one could ever desire.  (I'm sorry, I don't really mean to sound sarcastic.. ) But, I just don't agree with that point of view.

    -- Yes, indexed searching of a limited number of directories is a great search technology for files stored in the indexed directories...

    BUT,

    1, Why change the user interface so dramatically?- such a change seems to assume that nobody needs the old user interface.

    2. Why make it so hard to initiate a search for files in some folder other than "C:\Users\MyName\MyDocuments"?  Could be another user told me to find the info in the following folder "C:\Users\HisName\MyDocuments"... Could be the file(s) are on a USB stick, or a USB hard drive, or on a shared drive elsewhere on the network...  These don't need to be indexed, but the user interface should make it easy for me to search there

    3. What if I just want to look for all JPG files.. or all MP3 files.. or all XLS files.. AND, I have some directories which are copied over from an older computer.. and I keep them separate because I don't always need to look for one of these files.. but sometimes I do?

    5. What if I want to look for a large photograph file (>10 MB) from 3-4 years ago, previously on another computer and I can't remember if it is a JPG, PNG, PSD or PSP file?  Or maybe I want to go back to the original RAW file.  It could be on any of my disks.  Your new user interface "stinks" as far as trying to do such a search.

    My recommendation:

    1. Keep the indexed searching- it's good for its narrow purpose.

    2. Modify the user interface to easily allow additional search parameters (like the XP search dialog)- date range, file size range, possible file locations, file extensions, etc.

    "This is my final answer!"

    Otherwise I may have to seek out alternative file search tools.

    Thank you for your prompt action!

         WindowsGeek

     

    If you have data on external drives, just add them to a library and all your desires will be fullfilled.

    The XP search UI is not coming back, as our usage data told us that people *really* didn't use it. And everything you were able to do there, you can do today from the start menu search box or from the explorer search box, only in a much more powerful way, thanks to the awesome power of AQS Smiley

  • contextfree

    WindowsGeek said:

    I'm new to this Forum/Board.. and I wanted to make a comment about Search.. and I hope the MS personnel who are listening will do something about this:

    Background- There seems to be an opinion among MS personnel (no doubt backed up by research) that indexed searching of a limited number of directories is the best search tool one could ever desire.  (I'm sorry, I don't really mean to sound sarcastic.. ) But, I just don't agree with that point of view.

    -- Yes, indexed searching of a limited number of directories is a great search technology for files stored in the indexed directories...

    BUT,

    1, Why change the user interface so dramatically?- such a change seems to assume that nobody needs the old user interface.

    2. Why make it so hard to initiate a search for files in some folder other than "C:\Users\MyName\MyDocuments"?  Could be another user told me to find the info in the following folder "C:\Users\HisName\MyDocuments"... Could be the file(s) are on a USB stick, or a USB hard drive, or on a shared drive elsewhere on the network...  These don't need to be indexed, but the user interface should make it easy for me to search there

    3. What if I just want to look for all JPG files.. or all MP3 files.. or all XLS files.. AND, I have some directories which are copied over from an older computer.. and I keep them separate because I don't always need to look for one of these files.. but sometimes I do?

    5. What if I want to look for a large photograph file (>10 MB) from 3-4 years ago, previously on another computer and I can't remember if it is a JPG, PNG, PSD or PSP file?  Or maybe I want to go back to the original RAW file.  It could be on any of my disks.  Your new user interface "stinks" as far as trying to do such a search.

    My recommendation:

    1. Keep the indexed searching- it's good for its narrow purpose.

    2. Modify the user interface to easily allow additional search parameters (like the XP search dialog)- date range, file size range, possible file locations, file extensions, etc.

    "This is my final answer!"

    Otherwise I may have to seek out alternative file search tools.

    Thank you for your prompt action!

         WindowsGeek

     

    Apart from UI changes I don't really understand the problems you're having.  Searching in unindexed folders isn't any more difficult than searching in indexed folders in terms of UI, it's just slower, and at least to me it doesn't seem any slower than it was under XP.  Search parameters are easy enough to enter, though admittedly not very discoverable under Vista.

    My gripe with search in Vista (it's fixed in 7) -- and it's a major one -- is that when searching in partially indexed locations, it only searches the indexed files, meaning that it will miss files that are plainly there.  I really think MSFT should be obligated to backport the fix to a Vista service pack.  It may not technically be a bug, but it creates the impression -- and the practical reality -- that search just is not reliable.

    btw:

    "3. What if I just want to look for all JPG files.. or all MP3 files.. or all XLS files.. AND, I have some directories which are copied over from an older computer.. and I keep them separate because I don't always need to look for one of these files.. but sometimes I do?" --> type "name:*.jpg", "name:*.mp3", etc. into the search box

    "5. What if I want to look for a large photograph file (>10 MB) from 3-4 years ago, previously on another computer and I can't remember if it is a JPG, PNG, PSD or PSP file?  Or maybe I want to go back to the original RAW file.  It could be on any of my disks.  Your new user interface "stinks" as far as trying to do such a search." --> "size:>10MB datemodified:‎6/29/‎2005 .. ‎6/29/‎2006 name:(*.jpg OR *.png OR *.psd OR *.psd OR *.raw)"

  • PaoloM

    contextfree said:
    WindowsGeek said:
    *snip*

    Apart from UI changes I don't really understand the problems you're having.  Searching in unindexed folders isn't any more difficult than searching in indexed folders in terms of UI, it's just slower, and at least to me it doesn't seem any slower than it was under XP.  Search parameters are easy enough to enter, though admittedly not very discoverable under Vista.

    My gripe with search in Vista (it's fixed in 7) -- and it's a major one -- is that when searching in partially indexed locations, it only searches the indexed files, meaning that it will miss files that are plainly there.  I really think MSFT should be obligated to backport the fix to a Vista service pack.  It may not technically be a bug, but it creates the impression -- and the practical reality -- that search just is not reliable.

    btw:

    "3. What if I just want to look for all JPG files.. or all MP3 files.. or all XLS files.. AND, I have some directories which are copied over from an older computer.. and I keep them separate because I don't always need to look for one of these files.. but sometimes I do?" --> type "name:*.jpg", "name:*.mp3", etc. into the search box

    "5. What if I want to look for a large photograph file (>10 MB) from 3-4 years ago, previously on another computer and I can't remember if it is a JPG, PNG, PSD or PSP file?  Or maybe I want to go back to the original RAW file.  It could be on any of my disks.  Your new user interface "stinks" as far as trying to do such a search." --> "size:>10MB datemodified:‎6/29/‎2005 .. ‎6/29/‎2006 name:(*.jpg OR *.png OR *.psd OR *.psd OR *.raw)"

    "3. What if I just want to look for all JPG files.. or all MP3 files.. or all XLS files.. AND, I have some directories which are copied over from an older computer.. and I keep them separate because I don't always need to look for one of these files.. but sometimes I do?" --> type "name:*.jpg", "name:*.mp3", etc. into the search box

    "kind:picture" Smiley

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.