From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  8 Mar 2010 17:59:58 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <1ce7246a874196f1d359bd11ff3226d2@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <2be21f5f718bb2d6610a2483c1244a2c@quintile.net>
References: <2be21f5f718bb2d6610a2483c1244a2c@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans]
	=?utf-8?q?nb=E2=80=94search_and_index_notes_in_files_by_k?=
	=?utf-8?q?eyword?=
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e5333a74-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Mar  8 16:35:12 EST 2010, steve@quintile.net wrote:
> perhaps of interest is seft [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~oldk/seft/]
> which works well for me. It is unusual in that it allows all the usual
> text searching tools (including AltaVista's long lamented () "near" operator,
> but does not use indices, it does it the hard way.
>
> Before you dismiss this as slow, its just a matter of exactly what your
> problem is. Mine is a relatively small amount of rather dynamic data.
>
> if you want it I oprted it to APE here: contrib/install steve/seft

from
	http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F6653%2F17766%2F00824381.pdf%3Farnumber%3D824381&authDecision=-203

i get
	"we call seft, offers performance that in a retrieval
	effectiveness sense matches conventional information
	retrieval systems, and in a resource efficiency sense,
	while considerably slower than grep-like tools, is fast
	enough to be useful on hundreds of megabytes of text

why would we go for "slower than grep"?  wouldn't it be simpler
put a new queryish interface on grep á la 9fans.net/archive?
what am i missing?

- erik