# is it better to turn indexing off?



## DTV DRAGON (Jan 15, 2010)

I dont know if this is the right forum , but it kinda has to do with harddrives, I was wondering what your thoughts were on indexing on or off, I read that you will gain abit more performance, I looked and mine is on so iam wondering if i should turn it off or not  Dragon


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 15, 2010)

if you use SEARCH then dont turn it off... otherwise if u want a SLIGHT performance boost witch you will only get when it starts indexing randomly then go ahead.



not worth turning off imo.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 15, 2010)

As far as i know it wont really help to turn it off other than to stop your hard drive being thrashed when youre not using it. I suppose it would also help for when you just sit down at your computer, because it would be indexing and your hard drives wouldnt have to stop indexing and do what you need them to.

I turned mine off on my laptop but only because I hated the clicking sound when it was idle.


----------



## Tau (Jan 15, 2010)

If you ever use the search feature it basically speeds that up.... If you know were all your files are stored... uninstall/remove it cause its worthless.


----------



## DTV DRAGON (Jan 15, 2010)

i went into services and disabled it, I never do any searches etc. so guess i realy dont need it  thanx guys  Dragon


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 15, 2010)

Tau said:


> If you ever use the search feature it basically speeds that up.... If you know were all your files are stored... uninstall/remove it cause its worthless.



you have to remember tho, its faster to search for the file your looking for then to go find it yourself, for example

you have a large collection of movies, it would be quicker to navigate to that folder and search for the movie you wanted to watch then to find it yourself...

or to find a program in programs folder...


thats where indexing comes in handy


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 15, 2010)

If you organise your files you dont need it... filemanager SEARCH still works, just search the relevant partition or folder hierarchy. It just does it manually rather than using an index file so it is a tad slower... so the search might take 10 seconds rather than 2. And all that thrashing aint good on SSD or on HDD rigs you want to run low power, cool, and silent.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 15, 2010)

Completely Bonkers said:


> If you organise your files you dont need it... and when you do need to do a file search, just run one manually. And all that thrashing aint good on SSD or on HDD rigs you want to run low power, cool, and silent.



you shoudnt run indexing on a SSD.. its faster to search without it.


----------



## Tau (Jan 15, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> you have to remember tho, its faster to search for the file your looking for then to go find it yourself, for example
> 
> you have a large collection of movies, it would be quicker to navigate to that folder and search for the movie you wanted to watch then to find it yourself...
> 
> ...



Yeah none of that really applies to me, 500+ movies alphabetically ordered, open the folder type name bam i have my movie , all my programs are short cutted as well 

question though, Indexing only works on local discs correct?


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 15, 2010)

Hm wow good question. Never thought about that... time to research...

EDIT: Apparently networked drives are NOT indexed. They can, however BE indexed if wished. This is an old thread from W7 beta, but I assume nothing has changed. 

http://www.sevenforums.com/network-sharing/4616-indexing-network-share-locations.html


----------



## Tau (Jan 15, 2010)

Papahyooie said:


> Hm wow good question. Never thought about that... time to research...
> 
> EDIT: Apparently networked drives are NOT indexed. They can, however BE indexed if wished. This is an old thread from W7 beta, but I assume nothing has changed.
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/network-sharing/4616-indexing-network-share-locations.html



I wouldent assume network discs/folders would be indexed...  and frankly i wouldent want them to be...


As long as you keep your files organised there is no need for indexing/searching.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 15, 2010)

The search function in win seven and vista is actually much better then a standard search or antyhing like that.

I know I can type faster then I can browse so I just hit windows key and type the exe I want for example and hit enter.

Its handy for stuff like that so if that sounds handy its good to keep it on.


----------



## DTV DRAGON (Jan 15, 2010)

i realy dont have that much extra stuff on my puter , and what i do have I know were it is etc. I guess it would be good for someone with lots of programs charts etc.  I did disbale mine at startup.dont know if it will be noticable to me or not,Whatever i dont use i usually like to get rid of it  Dragon


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 16, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> The search function in win seven and vista is actually much better then a standard search or antyhing like that.
> 
> I know I can type faster then I can browse so I just hit windows key and type the exe I want for example and hit enter.
> 
> Its handy for stuff like that so if that sounds handy its good to keep it on.



If you do that, you might consider actually disabling the windows explorer altogether. I have a friend who doesnt even run explorer.exe, he just keeps a task manager open and hits the "new task" button and types in his exe. Claims it frees up resources.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

My rig is the family pc ha ha


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 16, 2010)

Oh well no dice then LOL. Can just see what would happen. 

"Um hey, youre computer has no start button, I think you need to throw it in the trash"

Least thats what my family would probably say.


----------



## hat (Jan 16, 2010)

I just turn the indexing service off. I don't really see anything positive one way or the other. I just disable it cause I can.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 16, 2010)

Yes but add to much for it to index it's no good.  I used to use it for COH which it helped but were taking like 2-4 seconds max.
Use it now for GTA 4 which helps loading textures works fairly well. So just customize it to your requirments to see for your self if it helps or not.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 16, 2010)

Tau said:


> Yeah none of that really applies to me, 500+ movies alphabetically ordered, open the folder type name bam i have my movie , all my programs are short cutted as well
> 
> question though, Indexing only works on local discs correct?



no offence but thats the situation is directly applies to you.

it is a lot faster to type in the name of the movie or part of it, then it is to scroll through and find the movie yourself even if its in alphabetical order.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 16, 2010)

AsRock said:


> Yes but add to much for it to index it's no good.  I used to use it for COH which it helped but were taking like 2-4 seconds max.
> Use it now for GTA 4 which helps loading textures works fairly well. So just customize it to your requirments to see for your self if it helps or not.



im fairly certain thats not how indexing works. 


soz double post


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 16, 2010)

You guys should start to use search, I'm always do, it always faster even if you have your folders and files organized.

Example:

I press Start+E, and then type Batman, it directed me to the movie file under <1 second. I'm sure it alot faster than browsing through your folders.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> You guys should start to use search, I'm always do, it always faster even if you have your folders and files organized.
> 
> Example:
> 
> I press Start+E, and then type Batman, it directed me to the movie file under <1 second. I'm sure it alot faster than browsing through your folders.



+1

I find it much faster to press the windows key and type fallout and press enter then to minimise what ever windows are up ( normally firefox and a shit ton of msn and steam boxes) and double click the shortcut


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 16, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> +1
> 
> I find it much faster to press the windows key and type fallout and press enter then to minimise what ever windows are up ( normally firefox and a shit ton of msn and steam boxes) and double click the shortcut



+2


----------



## AsRock (Jan 16, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> im fairly certain thats not how indexing works.
> 
> 
> soz double post



You can add what you want to it.  If the file extension is in the list it will index it but don't tell it to index the properties and file contents unless the file is like a .CFG .TXT .INI type file.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 16, 2010)

AsRock said:


> You can add what you want to it.  If the file extension is in the list it will index it but don't tell it to index the properties and file contents unless the file is like a .CFG .TXT .INI type file.



i know that, i dont see how it would help with game loading times. the game already knows the exact location of the files so... how would indexing them help with game load times?

thats what i was getting at.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

Aye indexing is just for the windows search functions, it doesn't synergise its self with other programs at all.

So having it on won't make a game run slower or faster.


Disabling the indexing service shouldn't make a difference to performance anyway, since it won't run when your actually doing things.

And once things are indexed their indexed, as long as your not moving your files around constantly it does nothing but good things 

I let my entire system be indexed, potentially dangerous if someone wanted to quickly delete my system files but damn its worth it to find any file as fast as I can type ( just under 90 words per minute)


----------



## AsRock (Jan 16, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Aye indexing is just for the windows search functions, it doesn't synergise its self with other programs at all.
> 
> So having it on won't make a game run slower or faster.
> 
> ...



And you should not index a whole system due to the fact that it only can handle so many files before becoming pointless.

Well it's funny that when i added COH to it and all it's files my system started to load games faster than a i7 setup did were as it did not before..

As when you start to play a online game you see that loading part well thats were it helped.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 16, 2010)

AsRock said:


> And you should not index a whole system due to the fact that it only can handle so many files before becoming pointless.
> 
> Well it's funny that when i added COH to it and all it's files my system started to load games faster than a i7 setup did were as it did not before..
> 
> As when you start to play a online game you see that loading part well thats were it helped.



might have been a coincidence, i just dont see how it would affect game load times as its not desinged to in anyway, the HDD it self would have a greater affect on loading times then cpu imo (with in reson.. not compareing a 6 year old cpu to an i7 for example but a core 2 sould load it at the same rate)


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

AsRock said:


> And you should not index a whole system due to the fact that it only can handle so many files before becoming pointless.
> 
> Well it's funny that when i added COH to it and all it's files my system started to load games faster than a i7 setup did were as it did not before..
> 
> As when you start to play a online game you see that loading part well thats were it helped.




If your going to say that can we have reasons please?

As I have indexed my entire C:drive, and yet the search function still works great.

and now my system only has to index new files I add so takes barely any time .

Hardly pointless, maybe over the top but not pointless.


----------



## erocker (Jan 16, 2010)

I have no use for the search function in Windows and I try to turn off all and any processes that access any of my hardware while I'm not using it.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jan 16, 2010)

do you have a source AsRock or review/benchmark  or simmiler to show that it affects performance having too much index'd?  i could see a reson why it would hurt performance but unless there there is evidence of that happening then i dont see a reson not to index most of your drive.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

erocker said:


> I have no use for the search function in Windows and I try to turn off all and any processes that access any of my hardware while I'm not using it.




Why?


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 16, 2010)

It works just like a normal book index.

It recorded all the paths for files (except system file belonged to Windows), and when you search for something, it will search through the index first before reading the whole hard drive for the file.

How do you search for a chapter in a book? Do you turn from the 1st to last page? No, you go through the index first, and that's how index work in Windows.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 16, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> *might have been a coincidence*, i just dont see how it would affect game load times as its not desinged to in anyway, the HDD it self would have a greater affect on loading times then cpu imo (with in reson.. not compareing a 6 year old cpu to an i7 for example but a core 2 sould load it at the same rate)



Maybe it was,  odd though as it did it a fair few times until i messed with it once again as i was trying  to add more games to it.




slyfox2151 said:


> do you have a source AsRock or review/benchmark  or simmiler to show that it affects performance having too much index'd?  i could see a reson why it would hurt performance but unless there there is evidence of that happening then i dont see a reson not to index most of your drive.



Just what MS says.


> You shouldn't. If you make the index too large, or if you include system file locations like the folder called Program Files, your routine searches will slow down because the index will not perform well. For best results, we recommend that you only add folders to the index that contain your personal files.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

Of course adding more items to a list will make it longer to go through, even for a computer.

How ever when you've got a fast quad core who cares lol

If you've got good hardware you should make it work 

That's what I think anyways.


----------



## Easo (Jan 16, 2010)

If you have a lot of music, dont turn it off, healps greatly. Search is very fast.


----------



## Tau (Jan 16, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> no offence but thats the situation is directly applies to you.
> 
> it is a lot faster to type in the name of the movie or part of it, then it is to scroll through and find the movie yourself even if its in alphabetical order.



You know it might turn out to be 1s faster, but me opening the folder (1 click, on my task bar) then typing the first 3-5 characters of the name and hitting enter.... opens the file needed.  I never scroll through that folder.... unless im bored and dont know what to watch.

The other thing is all my files are stored remotly on a centralised fileserver and very organised.

Again, Indexing may work for alot of people, just not me   have never used it, and i have it removed from this installation of vista so it frees up a bit of overhead.


----------



## Bo_Fox (Jan 16, 2010)

You could use Google Search, and turn the indexing off.  Windows search sucks in WinXP, and is very slow anyways (I havent tried Search within files on Vista or Win7 yet).


----------



## erocker (Jan 16, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Why?



I don't need it. My computer doesn't need it. Applications I'm using appreciate no other unneccessary tasks being run in the background. I mainly use my computer for gaming, most Windows features I don't need. I can't stand an untidy overbearing O/S.


----------



## DTV DRAGON (Jan 16, 2010)

erocker said:


> I don't need it. My computer doesn't need it. Applications I'm using appreciate no other unneccessary tasks being run in the background. I mainly use my computer for gaming, most Windows features I don't need. I can't stand an untidy overbearing O/S.



exactly what iam thinking as well  Dragon


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2010)

erocker said:


> I don't need it. My computer doesn't need it. Applications I'm using appreciate no other unneccessary tasks being run in the background. I mainly use my computer for gaming, most Windows features I don't need. I can't stand an untidy overbearing O/S.




Ahh right fair enough.

I use my computer for loads of stuff so the indexing service is handy as hell.


----------



## Bo_Fox (Jan 16, 2010)

I meant Google DESKTOP Search (part of the Google Toolbar program, or could be installed separately), if you still need to use the search function every once in a while.


----------



## Kreij (Jan 16, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> you shoudnt run indexing on a SSD.. its faster to search without it.



Do you have a source for benchmarks to support that statement?
When doing a search, indexing should always be faster, even on an SSD.


----------



## erocker (Jan 16, 2010)

Kreij said:


> Do you have a source for benchmarks to support that statement?
> When doing a search, indexing should always be faster, even on an SSD.



I know on older models of SSD's it wasn't a good idea to have it on due to it's constant accessing/writing on the drive which made them slower over time. I know they've changed some since then and perhapse they've fixed that.


----------



## Kreij (Jan 16, 2010)

I know that SS devices have a "read/write lifespan", but I was not aware that they would get slower over time (I can't even imagine why that would be given their electronic characteristics), only that they would die sooner from excessive r/w's. 

I can see turning off indexing on an SSD to extend it's life, but not why indexing would be slower on any SS device.


----------

