Logos 4.0d suggestion: Optimise phrase searching
Comments
-
Rosie Perera said:
I don't get it. Either there's an incompatibility between OR and NEAR, or Bradley can make that type of search work as the user intended. I don't see how it can be both.
Sorry, Rosie - that was a poor "explanation".
This might have been better "Bradley has explained the
incompatibility between the output of a Boolean expression (OR, AND) and a proximity term (BEFORE, NEAR) but it is still possible to make that type of search work as the user intended.", however Todd has provided a more complete explanation.Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Kevin Becker said:
In the US Summer is June, July, and August.
Not really. It is June 21st through September 20th. Astronomically based, of course. [S] [*]
And since God told us the heavenly lights were for signs, I'd defer to Genesis over my local school board's schedule . [C]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Not really. It is June 21st through September 20th. Astronomically based, of course.
And since God told us the heavenly lights were for signs, I'd defer to Genesis over my local school board's schedule .
I knew someone would go and look up the specifics! [:D]
Prov. 15:23
0 -
Kevin Becker said:
I knew someone would go and look up the specifics!
I didn't need to look it up.
My father bought me a telescope for my 12th birthday and took me to the top of Mt Zao to show me the rings of Saturn. It sparked a love of astronomy in my young heart. The telescope is long gone but the memory is treasured forever.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Thanks for the answers re summer.
I never get why mags come out titled "Fall 2010 Issue" or something. I never know when that is or when to expect the next one.
Its Winter here, a massive strorm outside, very wet and windy, and 4:38 am Tuesday. See my problem.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
I don't get it. Either there's an incompatibility between OR and NEAR, or Bradley can make that type of search work as the user intended. I don't see how it can be both. I do remember a thread explaining why (a,b) NEAR c works while (a OR b) NEAR c doesn't, but I don't remember why and can't find the thread.
OR and comma are not the same, though they give the same results in some situations. This is from the Wiki:
Using listsLists are a very useful feature which provide shortcuts in a number
of searches. A list is written like this: (term1, term2, term3,
etc.). When Logos encounters a list, it performs the search
using just term1. Then it repeats the search using just term2, then with
just term3, etc. Once it has finished, it then ORs the
results. Here are some examples:- (Jesus, Christ) is equivalent to Jesus
OR Christ - (Jesus, Christ) AND love is equivalent to (Jesus
AND love) OR (Christ AND love)
Lists are most useful when used with fields (see
below), or when trying to ensure proximity operators are only used in
the outer terms of your search. For example:- The search described earlier (master NEAR love) OR
(master NEAR serve) OR (neighbor NEAR love) OR (neighbor NEAR serve)
can be simplified to (master, neighbor) NEAR (love, serve).
Logos treats the two lists separately, iterating through them until
every combination as been reached, like this:- master NEAR love
- master NEAR
serve - neighbor NEAR love
- neighbor
NEAR serve
Please note: Some people get confused as they equate the list
with the OR command. They are not the same, even though in a very basic
search they will perform in the same way. Remember, Logos iterates
through lists, then ORs the results.This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 - (Jesus, Christ) is equivalent to Jesus
-
Mark Barnes said:
OR and comma are not the same, though they give the same results in some situations. This is from the Wiki:
So the short version is that 99% of the time we should be using commas instead of ORs in our searches?
Can anyone explain to me a case where using OR would be correct and appropriate?
0 -
I can't think of any situation where you mean OR, but where a comma wouldn't produce the result you intend - so the 'safest' course of action would be to always use commas. Commas will always give you the results you expect. (But that doesn't mean you should be using commas. OR is not incorrect most of the time.)
The reason why it's wrong some of the time is that OR is a boolean logical operator. In logic, a OR b either produces TRUE or FALSE. It can have no other result. In Logos, searching for Jesus OR Christ will return TRUE if the article contains one of those words, FALSE if the article contains neither of those words. After a search, Logos lists all the articles that are TRUE. This is quite satisfactory and quite correct. It's exactly what we want.
But what if you type (Jesus OR Christ) NEAR (love OR compassion)? The left-hand side is evaluated, and let's imagine returns the result TRUE. Then the right-hand side is evaluated. Let's imagine that returns TRUE as well. So we're left with TRUE NEAR TRUE. Logically, that makes no sense, hence Logos returns no results for that time of search.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
JimT said:
Its Winter here, a massive strorm outside, very wet and windy, and 4:38 am Tuesday. See my problem.
Sounds to me like your problem is insomnia! [:)]
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I can't think of any situation where you mean OR, but where a comma wouldn't produce the result you intend - so the 'safest' course of action would be to always use commas. Commas will always give you the results you expect. (But that doesn't mean you should be using commas. OR is not incorrect most of the time.)
The reason why it's wrong some of the time is that OR is a boolean logical operator. In logic, a OR b either produces TRUE or FALSE. It can have no other result. In Logos, searching for Jesus OR Christ will return TRUE if the article contains one of those words, FALSE if the article contains neither of those words. After a search, Logos lists all the articles that are TRUE. This is quite satisfactory and quite correct. It's exactly what we want.
But what if you type (Jesus OR Christ) NEAR (love OR compassion)? The left-hand side is evaluated, and let's imagine returns the result TRUE. Then the right-hand side is evaluated. Let's imagine that returns TRUE as well. So we're left with TRUE NEAR TRUE. Logically, that makes no sense, hence Logos returns no results for that time of search.
Ahhh...that makes sense now. Thanks for the great explanation Mark. [;)]
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Logos 4 is superfast for most searching, but very slow with phrase searching. Take the following example:
- "look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers" which takes about 30s in my library. That's too long.
- but dogs NEAR look NEAR evildoers takes 0.55s - that's one sixtieth of the time!
Now it seems to be that if you can find the latter search in such a short time, it surely must be possible to optimise the former one some how.
0 -
Bradley Grainger said:Mark Barnes said:
Logos 4 is superfast for most searching, but very slow with phrase searching. Take the following example:
- "look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers" which takes about 30s in my library. That's too long.
- but dogs NEAR look NEAR evildoers takes 0.55s - that's one sixtieth of the time!
Now it seems to be that if you can find the latter search in such a short time, it surely must be possible to optimise the former one some how.
Hmm, Bradley you must be using a very small library and an extremely fast machine. I know my machine is slower than most, but I'd be happy with 10 or 20 or even 30 seconds! Here's my result for the same search (EDIT: This is in 4.2 RC 2):
0 -
7.5s in 4.2 vs. 10.4s in 4.1, both on the Desktop [:|]
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
12 seconds for my aging 1.9 Core Duo with a 1 GB video card
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Peace to all! *smile*
Mine took 96.4 seconds. Have almost 3,000 resources.
OS Name Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Build 2600
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name THEFUTUREISNOW
System Manufacturer Dell Inc.
System Model Dell DXG051
System Type X86-based PC
Processor x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 3 GenuineIntel ~3392 Mhz
BIOS Version/Date Dell Inc. A06, 10/02/2006
SMBIOS Version 2.3
Windows Directory C:\WINDOWS
System Directory C:\WINDOWS\system32
Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume2
Locale Canada
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "5.1.2600.5512 (xpsp.080413-2111)"
User Name THEFUTUREISNOW
Time Zone Eastern Standard Time
Total Physical Memory 4,096.00 MB
Available Physical Memory 795.04 MB
Total Virtual Memory 2.00 GB
Available Virtual Memory 1.96 GB
Page File Space 7.84 GB
Page File C:\pagefile.sysPhilippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
7.5s in 4.2 vs. 10.4s in 4.1, both on the Desktop
Robert Pavich said:12 seconds for my aging 1.9 Core Duo with a 1 GB video card
Milford Charles Murray said:Mine took 96.4 seconds. Have almost 3,000 resources.
Hmm, I wonder if it has something to do with how many resources we have, not just how fast our machines are? Dave, Robert how many resources do you have? I have over 4,000. So my timing would make some sense proportionally with Milford's.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Hmm, I wonder if it has something to do with how many resources we have, not just how fast our machines are? Dave, Robert how many resources do you have?
The second figure for v4.1 on the same computer should indicate whether Bradley was boasting about an improvement in search speed for 4.2. But my times today were 7.0s (4.2) and 7.2s (4.1, achieved during startup!), so it grows increasingly unlikely.
I have 972 resources.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:Rosie Perera said:
Hmm, I wonder if it has something to do with how many resources we have, not just how fast our machines are? Dave, Robert how many resources do you have?
The second figure for v4.1 on the same computer should indicate whether Bradley was boasting about an improvement in search speed for 4.2. But my times today were 7.0s (4.2) and 7.2s (4.1, achieved during startup!), so it grows increasingly unlikely.
I have 972 resources.
Wow! I would give almost anything for 7 second phrase search times! Except I wouldn't give away over 3000 of my Logos resources. :-)
0 -
Remember that caching can help. I got 38.3s in a first run, 29s on subsequent runs. My library size is similar to Rosie's. I do wonder whether the relatively slow speeds we're suffering from are partly due to the relevant part of our large library indexes not being able to be held in memory.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Remember that caching can help.
I usually take the first attempt after a startup. Another go with 4.1/4.2 shows that my 7s times vary by no more than +0.5s.
EDIT: to simplify that, my times are in the range 7s to 7.5s
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Remember that caching can help. I got 38.3s in a first run, 29s on subsequent runs. My library size is similar to Rosie's.
Just as a comparison, I ran the search on my other installation. The times above were on a 15,000rpm drive running 4.2. The times below are on a 7,200rpm drive running 4.1.
At 7,200rpm I got 48s on the first run, and 40s on the second run, and 27s on subsequent runs.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Hmm, I wonder if it has something to do with how many resources we have, not just how fast our machines are? Dave, Robert how many resources do you have? I have over 4,000. So my timing would make some sense proportionally with Milford's.
Rosie,
I have 1075 resources (I've hidden probably 300 or 400)
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
I ran a search for "look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers" and it took 36.30s. I have almost 9000 resources.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
-
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
At 7,200rpm I got 48s on the first run, and 40s on the second run, and 27s on subsequent runs.
Running L4 Mac 4.0b, I got 43.65s first run and 43.34s second run. Guess we do not have caching yet.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
Guess we do not have caching yet.
The caching is provided automatically by Windows. Perhaps you should... [no, I'll resist [;)] ]
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Hmm, Bradley you must be using a very small library and an extremely fast machine.
Or maybe he has a newer version of the code that hasn't been released yet...
:-)
0 -
Hmmm!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
Or maybe he has a newer version of the code that hasn't been released yet...
:-)
My heart just palpitated.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0
