nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Catagorized indexing?

Ron Corbett

I am NOT a techie or geek or I.T. person. I do have a creative imagination and today it was mulling something I would like to share and maybe get some feedback on - as to the merit or folly of this idea.

Just because Logos IS big doesn't mean it has to WORK big. I don't understand to concept of indexing, but (this is my idea) what if different categories within L4 could be indexed seperately. What if after we set up a Collection for instance, L4 would reindex that Collection and keep it "in a drawer" till needed. Then when I do a search, Logos doesn't need to attack a HUGE list, but only the index file for that segment. Couldn't L4 be streamlined in some way to work small ?

Other categories? EnglishBibles, Hebrew Bibles, Greek Bibles (esp those I use most). Morphologies / Syntax data, etc.

And one more idea. What if during setup of L4 (after installation or any time thereafter) we could click on checkboxes to tell Logos that these books/ mytags are NOT on the SEARCH ENTIRE LIBRARY list, (but could be searched with a different command; perhaps, something like SEARCH EVERYTHING). This might allow us to work smaller which might allow L4 to work faster which might ...

Again, I don't know alot about indexing, but the thought occurred to me and I thought I would bring it out here

[How else would I know you can't lasso the moon?]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Ron ... add to your thinking that the indexing process supports more than searches ... when you right-click on a word, the lookup is using the indices. Similarly the 'cited by' and other tools as well. But the biggest challenge in your interesting idea is the connections between resources which are like a maze of inter-connecting webs.

Personnally, I'd be VERY happy to turn indexing off completely, since I do few searches in the Logos4 version. But then I couldn't use the word studies and so forth which are my most frequent use of L4.

MJ. Smith

Again, I don't know alot about indexing, but the thought occurred to me and I thought I would bring it out here

Your idea isn't that far off from how good indexing actually works with high level distinction narrowing down what has to be searched in detail. P.S. As a tall tale contestant I'm sure I have lassoed the moon - the major obstacle was rope length

Ron Corbett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/252313#Comment_252313

the major obstacle was rope length

I never needed that much rope: I caught it at peri-looney-er as opposed to ap-looney-er which was beyond me.

Ron Corbett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/252321#Comment_252321

I uploaded a log file [re:a problem with a Beta crash] and before I sent it, I looked through it out of curiosity. It seems to show a lot of activity going on under the surface and some of it is hard to appreciate. For example, I saw L4 generate a list of 126 resources that I hid. Why have the program do ANY work in this category? If books are hid in a folder, can't the program simply bypass them and work on other items? There are probably reasons for doing this that are beyond my computer savy, but it still doesn't make much sense. I take my hat off to those who work on code and to those who can trouble-shoot issues under the hood.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/252678#Comment_252678

Okay.

One of the issues with Libronix that was causing problems was that it was not indexed. We asked Logos to do something like Google Desktop (which indexes everything in your hard drive), to make searches faster. Logos investigated and agreed. Now they're tweaking their indexing process to make it as efficient as possible. Remember these libraries are huge and complex.

As for speed, it's unlikely that dividing up the indexes into categories or collections would work well. First, some of my collections overlap (all commentaries, vs. exegetical, homiletical, etc.). Second, it's not clear that it would be more efficient to report the results of a search by dividing up the search target into multiple indexes.The only thing this might accomplish is saving some time during the indexing process. But it would degrade performance of Logos4.

As for Logos noticing your 126 hidden files each time, remember that when it compares your licenses with the actual files in your library it will automatically download anything it finds missing. So, knowing which ones aren't missing, but are intentionally 'hidden' is important. You might also note that this process doesn't take very long. On my system (with 197 hidden resources) it took 0.148 seconds (i.e. 1.48 tenths of a second).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/252678#Comment_252678

For example, I saw L4 generate a list of 126 resources that I hid. Why have the program do ANY work in this category?

My guess as to 1 reason: so when you are using a reading list that references them, you aren't directed to buy them. I suspect that there are several reasons.

Ron Corbett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/252682#Comment_252682

Thanks,

These answers are helpful. It only took me 0.148 seconds to realize that the progress of Logos in this area will probably proceed without much help from me

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered