Give multiple database search higher priority

[wordmuse]

In the URP roadmap ...
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthre...?threadid=3204

multi-db searching is given a relatively low priority. I'd like to suggest that this be given a higher priority - for incredibly selfish reasons, I so acknowledge - and thought it might be instructive to see if I am completely alone in this (wouldn't be the first time).

Hopefully - I'm using the polling feature in this forum correctly... And if not, the choices are:

1 - Mutli-db search would help me save my life!
2 - Ehh - it would be nice, but I think Kinook's roadmap is just fine.
3 - Multi-db search? Who needs it?

Hint: I do.

Regards,
Bal

[mikeg]

I fall somewhere between 1 and 2. I would use many of the items ahead of cross DB search more frequently, but I agree multi-DB search is important, so I'll support your survey with a +1.

Part of Kinook's calculation is certainly an estimate of how much work each roadmap item will take to implement. Some of the items ahead of multi-DB search will probably require a lot less time even if a few of them are less critical.

A bit off topic, but I'm concerned about a different roadmap item--desktop search--being the kind of feature that could bloat UR beyond it's core purpose. I'm glad the roadmap says "investigate". We already have free desktop search tools like Windows Search, Google Search and Copenic.

Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding the intention, but IMO, indexing file names inside linked folders is about as far as UR should go down the desktop search road and even that behavior should be off by default. I'm concerned about overhead, convoluted search results and size of the index.

On the other hand, Multi-DB search should be considered core functionality IMO.

[quant]

Originally posted by mikeg
A bit off topic, but I'm concerned about a different roadmap item--desktop search--being the kind of feature that could bloat UR beyond it's core purpose. I'm glad the roadmap says "investigate". We already have free desktop search tools like Windows Search, Google Search and Copenic.

Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding the intention, but IMO, indexing file names inside linked folders is about as far as UR should go down the desktop search road and even that behavior should be off by default. I'm concerned about overhead, convoluted search results and size of the index.

I think you misunderstood.

It's not for UR to work as desktop search, but the other way around: for desktop search programs to be able to index UR database in a meaningful way.

Fortunatelly, we now have a bit more powerful search inside UR (NEAR search, relevance attribute, ...), but it still cannot match the proper indexing program that specializes in search features.

[mikeg]

Quant thanks for clarifying that it's the other way around. I'm curious to see the techniques for exposing a SQLite database to external desktop search engines. I need to read up on the relevent threads when I get a chance.

Meanwhile, I'm ecstatic about full-text search. Just downloaded 4.1a. Plenty of search improvements to keep me happy while waiting on cross-DB search. Don't need that as urgently as wordmuse, but I can understand anyone who regularly keeps multiple URD's open would need it like yesterday.

[wordmuse]

I agree that the current search capabilities of URP4 are excellent. And by using multiple locked and hoisted tabs, I can kind of simulate multiple databases. But I still have data locked away in archives that would be good to see.

Question: can I, and if so how, use google desktop to peer inside URP4 data files? Would I just specify the text I want and then use filetype:urd ? I'm guessing not as I haven't been able to make it work, but maybe I'm missing something, so I figure I'd ask.

If not, then the multiple db search remains high on my list.

Thanks.

- Bal