Groups > comp.sys.mac.advocacy > #136446

Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing

From	Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups	comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.comp.os.windows-11
Subject	Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing
Date	2025-08-11 10:57 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<107datj$2nolj$5@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <107adkp$1voqj$1@dont-email.me> <107ase3$22qav$1@dont-email.me> <107bb0o$27f7h$1@dont-email.me> <107bbqj$26r4d$1@dont-email.me> <107bq4h$2ah49$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-08-10 21:04, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 8/10/2025 8:00 PM, Alan wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> You don't have to "cp" or "copy" a file to copy it as such.
>>
>> OK. So what? I wasn't copying files when Windows wanted to re-index them...
>>
>> ...I was just moving them.
> 
> And to help you, I have explained the implementation.

You're just explaining WHY it does it badly, but the truth is that it 
doesn't HAVE to be done badly.

> 
> The USN Journal is not a brain trust. All it can do, is
> report *every* file system change, so that utilities
> like Everything.exe or the Search Indexer in Windows,
> are apprised of file system changes.
> 
> If you move a file, there is a "deletefile" in the
> USN Journal and a "createfile". Suggestions ? Timmy ?
> It is NOT ALLOWED to use calculus. That's how all file
> system operations work. Each operation is independent,
> primitive, and simple. This is how developers stay out
> of trouble, by using the KISS principle. They are
> NOT ALLOWED to notice "hey, this is the same file
> as before, let's just wodge this here metadata
> around in the inverted index". Multiple entries
> inside the inverted index would need to be corrected
> if you tried to do this sort of calculus. Instead,
> the primitives the software support is "remove index
> entry" or "add index entry", which requires a Merge
> of a small index, into the Master index.

No, actually.

When you MOVE a file, the USN Journal records this as a "rename".

A file that is moved on an NTFS volume keeps the same File Reference 
Number, so there is no reason AT ALL that the indexer shouldn't be able 
to see that all that has changed about the file is the path TO that file.

So you lose right from the outset with your attempt to justify the 
horrible performance of Windows indexing.

> 
> People propose non-primitive operations all the time.
> I like to joke about it too. For example, if I want
> to delete 2000 files, why couldn't the OS just freeze,
> open the $MFT, pretend it was a copy of Notepad,
> delete 2000 lines in the file, then Save. That would
> work wouldn't it ? As much as we would like that to
> happen, that is not allowed.

Not germane to our topic.

> 
> The closest Microsoft has come to violating the non-primitive
> rule, is the creation of MBR2GPT.exe utility. And we are
> not quite sure whether that was a Microsoft employee who
> wrote that, or it is someone outside the organization. What is
> interesting about that utility, is I did two test cases
> where I thought the offered materials were the same, and
> the output of the utility was entirely different (different
> set of partitions and in a different order). The utility is
> its own best example of why we do not short-circuit the
> primitives in things. (This is a utility that makes multiple
> partition changes, via one press of the button. A backup is
> advised, by the audience out here.)
> 
> Even in its current state, the Federated Search is not a
> finished project. It is not finished, because it has
> a tick box for "filename only" indexing, and that tick
> box does not work. I got the distinct impression that
> for a couple of years, someone must have left Microsoft,
> and there seemed to be nobody available to work on Federated
> Search. But as evidence that changed, the database used
> for the Index was changed from Jet Blue to Sqlite. which
> makes no difference to how the thing behaves for the end
> user. But it does suggest that someone opened up the
> source for that package and messed with it.
> 
>     [Picture]
> 
>      https://i.postimg.cc/sgVGZjwy/Indexing-Options.gif
> 
>     Paul
>

Thread

It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-09 16:30 -0700
  Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-09 18:55 -0500
    Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-09 17:08 -0700
      Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Hank Rogers <invalid@nospam.com> - 2025-08-10 03:22 +0000
        Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-09 23:52 -0400
          Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 09:54 +0100
  Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-09 23:28 -0400
  Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 12:34 +0800
    Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-10 11:25 -0400
      Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-10 12:37 -0700
        Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-10 19:46 -0400
          Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-10 17:00 -0700
            Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-11 00:04 -0400
              Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-11 06:13 +0000
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Hank Rogers <invalid@nospam.com> - 2025-08-11 06:23 +0000
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-11 11:26 -0700
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-12 01:15 -0400
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-12 08:54 -0700
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-12 13:41 -0400
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-12 10:54 -0700
              Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-11 10:57 -0700
                Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-12 08:52 -0700
      Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 20:22 +0800
        Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-11 19:16 +0000
          Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-11 17:03 -0700
          Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:36 +0800
  Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2025-08-10 18:33 -0400
    Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-11 02:12 -0400
      Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-11 11:25 -0700
        Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-11 18:02 -0400
          Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-11 17:01 -0700
            Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-12 01:24 -0400
              Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-12 08:49 -0700
              Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-12 17:10 +0000
          Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-12 08:55 -0700
  Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 16:03 -0400
    Re: It is stunning when you see how badly Windows operates: indexing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-17 18:15 -0400

csiph-web