Search by filesize?

[layeif]

Is it possible to set filters for file-sizes?

[David]

No, unfortunately it is currently not possible to set a size filter.

Gathering file size information is extremely slow with the current release of "Everything".

I have plans to improve the performance of gathering file size information for the next release of "Everything".
The option to filter by size could be a possibility for a future release.

[peytonyan]

Hi David, is it possible to search by specific date?

[David]

Unfortunately, No.

"Everything" does not index file dates.

I do have plans to instantly list recently modified files for the next release of "Everything" which may be of help.

[deepout]

I think if Everything can search by file size , it may slow down.
search by file name is enough.
Authors can add a feature,if you need to search by file size ,open it.if not close it.
I come frome China,my English is very poor.
I love this software.
THanks to the author

[David]

The sorting performance has been largely increased for the next release of "Everything".

Files will be sorted by path before gathering file size information.

[Kurt]

size filtering would be GREAT...

sorting the size column of 1800000+.... items is nuts.. but filtering the list for anything over a certain size would be a major help, would then making sorting the size column much quicker

[daspud]

size filtering would be GREAT...

sorting the size column of 1800000+.... items is nuts.. but filtering the list for anything over a certain size would be a major help, would then making sorting the size column much quicker

Unfortunately, in order to filter by file size Everything first has to read the file information for EVERY one of those 1800000+ files. This slows the performance wayyyyyyyy down.

For example, if you wanted to know which files were larger than 1GB Everything has to read the directory information for each file and decide if it is > 1gb and then list it in the results. On the other had if you wanted to know which files whose name contained a certain string were over 1gb then Everything would only have to read the directory information for those selected files. The first selection by name would be fast using Everything's internal table. There is no table for file size and that is why it will be much slower.

[Kurt]

Well I'd like to have Everything be able to do everything fast.... so maybe it could use a table/database to store.. even a special database system that is specially design to allow you to set particular drives/folders where it should check file sizes and store those.

"Unfortunately, in order to filter by file size Everything first has to read the file information for EVERY one of those 1800000+ files. This slows the performance wayyyyyyyy down."

I guess this is why I prefere just using Locate32 and storing each hdd drive as a seperate db.. at least everything is actually searchable and filterable in a speedy manner.. even if it does take longer to update those db's.. not to mention more managable. At least I can choose when its needed. Compared to Everything which wants to check things everytime you start it up.... I might not have had any files changed/added/removed on particular drives. Its probably spent more time trashing my drives than I locate32 ever has... and yet if you don't allow it, then there is no way of searching those drives.

Also with everything if you mount another drive volume etc.. it goes and starts checking ALL drives again... this is annoying/stupid(not just checking the new volume) When I start everything up.. I can live with the first update (really I prefere if it did just have a database.. and I said when it should check drives) I don't want it checking updates whenever.. It should be user choice.. it should at least be asking me if it should be allowed to check that newly mounted volume.

[cacamama]

"Avafind" gathers file size information, and is a great piece of software. It lacks regexp searches and some more features, but it's still good enough. "Everything" takes less than 1 minute to index the 250k+ files I have, while "Avafind" takes about under 2 minutes, which is still great. Other than the inclusion of file size in searches, it's way behind Everything though. I still have "Avafind", but I haven't used it since "Everything" came about.

Still, a db for file size data would be invaluable. It should definitely be introduced as an option though, "Everything" works great with its current modus operandi.