Search all Forums?

[TonyC]

I just realized that I am no longer able to serach "all forums" for a keyword. Unless I'm cracking up (quite possible) I was able to do it rececently and certainly in the past. Has something changed? I couldn't find a reference to any changes so I thought I'd ask.

Thanks.

 

[MikePA]

Hi TonyC,

The capability to search all forums was removed at the same time that the other changes were made in order to improve site performance.

 

[Trev]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Hi TonyC,

The capability to search all forums was removed at the same time that the other changes were made in order to improve site performance. )</font>

Just my own perspective, but I really miss the ability to search all forums. I can never remember which forum has what I'm looking for, and it takes a long time to find what I'm looking for when individual searches must be done.

As for the performance, I would just *expect* a slow response when searching all forums.. that's the trade-off for the convenience of not having to remember which forum something is in.

Is the problem that it slows down the response time for *everybody*, or just the person doing the search? If the latter, then I'd vote to return it.

For example, I was just wondering where I had posted about my air compressor back a year or so ago. Hmm.. which forum did I put that in? Darned if I can remember. The temptation is to say well, I guess I should post a new thread since it will take me all day to find the old one. This might be a real downside to the limited search capability.. people will just begin new threads rather than spending an hour or two trying to find the one that already exists.. somewhere.

Anyway, just my $0.02. The site is running great, from my perspective!! Hardly any delays at all, for anything! Good work, guys!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bob

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> Is the problem that it slows down the response time for *everybody*, </font>
I'm sure Ibrahim will correct this if I am wrong... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Clicking to read a post, clicking to write a post, clicking to view a picture all require a connection to the TBN database. Reading and writing are relatively quick. Searching a database of 300,000 messages can take a long time and it represents a connection to the database. There's only so many simultaneous open database connections that a given hardware platform can support. There's no distinction between a connection for reading and writing messages versus doing searches. So, a database searches slows down response time for everyone.

 

[Trev]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> Is the problem that it slows down the response time for *everybody*, </font>
I'm sure Ibrahim will correct this if I am wrong... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Clicking to read a post, clicking to write a post, clicking to view a picture all require a connection to the TBN database. Reading and writing are relatively quick. Searching a database of 300,000 messages can take a long time and it represents a connection to the database. There's only so many simultaneous open database connections that a given hardware platform can support. There's no distinction between a connection for reading and writing messages versus doing searches. So, a database searches slows down response time for everyone. )</font>

Would it then follow that if I had to do 10 searches to find what I'm looking for, it would slow things down more than doing one larger search? Don't mean to belabor this, just curious how it works....

Thanks,
Bob

 

[Bird]

Bob, I agree with you. I'm not very good at the "search" function and always used the "all forums" which I much prefer. However . . ., if I understand everything right, yes, if you (or I) do 10 searches instead of the one, the total time we use up on the server may be close to the same, but the 10 are spread out (or broken up) so we don't slow things down as much for others. And of course, since there are actually more than 10 forums, even 10 separate searches wouldn't take up quite as much server time as searching all forums. Of course, I guess if you do a search on each forum, you'd sure use up a lot of your own time and then the total time on the server might the same. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[winchman]

Trev,

You said, " Just my own perspective, but I really miss the ability to search all forums. I can never remember which forum has what I'm looking for, and it takes a long time to find what I'm looking for when individual searches must be done.


<font color="black"> </font> I agree 100% with what you said and would vote to return the "search all forums."

winchman

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> Would it then follow that if I had to do 10 searches to find what I'm looking for, it would slow things down more than doing one larger search? </font>
Your 10 searches would be done sequentially, each separated by human intervention to type in the next forum to search. In essence, 10 'little' searches versus 1 'big' search.

Typically, a database that's designed for interactive access, i.e., responding to many requests each of which does not last long, doesn't run well with requests that last a long time, e.g., a search.

For those with computer experience, reading and writing posts is an interactive process. Searching is a batch process.

 

[swa240z]

I think it would be helpful and less taxing on the system to allow searches within forum groups rather than "all forums". Usually, what I am looking for is in one of the forums in a particular group. By group, I mean General Forumsj, Kubota, New Holland, John Deere, Group Forums, Other Brands, etc. That might be a good compromise. My 2 cents.

Steve

 

[Trev]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> Would it then follow that if I had to do 10 searches to find what I'm looking for, it would slow things down more than doing one larger search? </font>
Your 10 searches would be done sequentially, each separated by human intervention to type in the next forum to search. In essence, 10 'little' searches versus 1 'big' search.

Typically, a database that's designed for interactive access, i.e., responding to many requests each of which does not last long, doesn't run well with requests that last a long time, e.g., a search.

For those with computer experience, reading and writing posts is an interactive process. Searching is a batch process. )</font>

Okay, here's a thought then. Note that I didn't say it was a good though, merely that it was a thought. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If someone wanted to search the entire archive of posts, would it be possible/workable/easy to launch that search as a batch job, running at low priority in the background, and to mail the person the results when the search concluded?

My main concern is that, being unable to find the appropriate thread, where the new post really belongs, people will simply begin a new thread. In the long run, which is worse... having multiple, redundant, threads, or giving people *some* way of finding the thread that they know exists but can't find?

I know that often threads wander.. and a thread on "John Deere hydraulics" will often end up with posts about hydraulics in general, hose connection techniques, which hoses to use for what, how to connect air hoses, and so on.. ad infinitum. I don't see any way around that happening.. given that we are all mere humans doing the best we can to communicate something helpful. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

So... perhaps an option for a *slow* search.. you could program these to run at non-prime-time hours, to run at low priority, to take as long as they want, to be pre-empted by interactive requests, and to mail the results whenever convenient.

Again, just a thought! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bob