bmac
This is just a matter of opinion: I wonder about the drain on resources having PB4 index its files and attachments at the same time that a desktop index engine such as WDS 3.01, Google desktop, or Copernic is also trying to index. And, what happens when the desktop search engine starts trying to index the index of PB4?

I'm surely not a programmer but logic just seems to suggest that if there are very capable desktop search engines, what is the necessity of having a search engine just for PB4?  Won't any of the above-mentioned search engines also is index PB4 thoughts, notes (I know they will index attachments)?

PB4 users running Windows XP have the option of not deploying any of the search engines.  But this will not be possible with WindowsVista as it has the search engine embedded in the operating system (and is obviously the source of a festering-possible- lawsuit between Google and Microsoft).
Bill
customized Desktop PC (Haswell i7 4770 3.4 gHz with 32 GB RAM), Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, 256 GB SSD,  and a Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Windows 10, 512 GB SSD, 16 GB ram, i5
Quote
tcahill
PB is cross-platform. The other search engines you mention are not (?). Under OpenSuse, the default indexer is "Kerry Beagle", and I believe Mac has something else.

While you point about redundancy is a good one, I feel that there are benefits that outweigh that cost. I run PB under both Linux and WinXP, and having the same indexing function available on both platforms is a boon.
Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting wabbit.
Quote
JosefBetancourt
Not being savvy to the Brain's internals, I may be offbase in this.   There are differenct kinds of indexes and each indexing app will also create different data structure results and use proprietary API.  So, I doubt there is much piggybackiing going on.   That is one of the factors for the hugh perfomance differences among the desktop search systems.

Off-topic:
If you want to see how much stuff is going on, use one of the sysinternals utilities.  I'm amazed how much activity is going on.  Like why would the same exact program read the same 'node' in the registry, constantly!

-- josef

Quote
Harlan
Each indexing program uses it own index. Unfortunately, there is no "standard" way of indexing files - this is why it is very complex. Each indexer must convert the files to text in order to create its index. These index files are not likely to be indexed themselves since they are in a proprietary file format.

PB's separate index is smarter than most other indexes because PB knows what's important to you - it doesn't try to index everything, just the things in your Brain. Therefore, the results are much more relevant.

If you really want to avoid redundancy, just configure your 3rd party indexing software not to index the folder where you store your Brains.

Regards,
-Harlan
Quote
Harlan
One more comment...

PB's indexing is vastly more efficient in it's use of resources than other indexers because it knows when files have been updated. It doesn't have to "watch" your entire hard drive and jump to check on every little change. It only runs when a change has actually been made, so the overhead from running the indexing is actually very minimal.

Regards,
-Harlan
Quote
Spacenexus
This thread leads me to one question. The only datafiles I have that are not in the brain are my outlook.pst files totalling about 3Gb.

Harlan, is there any reason I cannot move the .pst into the brain (with the appropriate repointing in outlook) and in that case have my outlook files also indexed? Will the PB indexing and search routines be able to resolve single emails etc within the .pst file?

Actually, as i think about it a little more, the advantages of having the brian indexing outlook files might be offset by having such a large set of unintegrated data at thought level, so perhaps not such a good idea.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

cheers

Jim
@181218:
TB8022 32bit
Java 32bit Version 8 Update 141

Firefox, Office 2013 Pro Plus 32bit
64bit Win10Pro
64bit Primary Laptop, 8GB RAM, Intel Core i7
64bit Secondary Laptop, 64GB RAM, Intel Xeon E3
Brain user since zygote
Quote
bmac
Spacenexus wrote:

Harlan, is there any reason I cannot move the .pst into the brain (with the appropriate repointing in outlook) and in that case have my outlook files also indexed? Will the PB indexing and search routines be able to resolve single emails etc within the .pst file?

This certainly is an intriguing thought.  Very early in the development of PB4 I questioned why the software could not be a desktop replacement -- replace the Windows desktop -- such that everything one does during the day with a computer actually gets incorporated into the brain.  This would include obviously running programs from the desktop, managing e-mails, tasks, and calendar items, and filing/archiving.  Using the personal brain as the desktop manager, so to speak, then one could almost turn off any external indexing program.

Regards,
   Bill

Bill
customized Desktop PC (Haswell i7 4770 3.4 gHz with 32 GB RAM), Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, 256 GB SSD,  and a Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Windows 10, 512 GB SSD, 16 GB ram, i5
Quote

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter        Visit TheBrain Blog   Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Twitter       Like Us on Facebook   Facebook         Circle Us on Google+  Google         Watch Us on Youtube  YouTube       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software