After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 140258 - RFE: Allow gnome-search-tool to use the updatedb cache
RFE: Allow gnome-search-tool to use the updatedb cache
Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX
Product: gnome-utils
Classification: Deprecated
Component: gsearchtool
2.6.x
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-utils Maintainers
gnome-utils Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-04-16 13:58 UTC by Daniel Reed
Modified: 2009-08-15 18:40 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Daniel Reed 2004-04-16 13:58:32 UTC
[Migrated from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120688]

It would be beneficial to have an option in gnome-search-tool to use
the cached updatedb information if available.  This would allow a much
quicker response for the files that were already cached.  I normally
use `locate` because gnome-search-tool takes several orders of
magnitude longer to complete.

From a usability stand-point the option should be on the front page so
that it would be easy to switch between the two.
Comment 1 Dennis Cranston 2004-04-16 19:01:16 UTC
Gnome-search-tool already uses the locate command for searches where
appropriate;  but, because the results from locate are often out of date, its
use is limited.  For example, searches in the user's home directory do not use
the locate command.  We want the results to be accurate and up-to-date when a
user is searching for their files.  On the other hand, if a user searches at the
root level (/) we will use the locate command by default.

I don't agree that an option for quick searches is appropriate on the front
panel.  I want the search tool's interface to remain simple.  Other ideas?
Comment 2 Forrest 2004-04-16 23:50:15 UTC
What about putting it under Show more options?

How about using locate first, and appending matches with <found via locate> (or
something similar)?
Comment 3 Dennis Cranston 2004-04-20 20:07:49 UTC
The use of 'locate' is optional.  It doesn't really belong with a fixed set of
options like those listed under "show more options".  

The append idea would cause more problems than it would solve.  First, the user
would be confused by "found via locate".  Second, the results would contain
duplicate items.  Third, the total search time would actually increase.
Comment 4 Dennis Cranston 2004-04-23 05:29:54 UTC
The locate command has not been reliable enough for many users.  I am going to
mark this bug as WONTFIX.  A better long term solution for quicker search
results would be the Medusa and Storage projects.