frollar2 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 so i get this warning a ton a day, ive tried repairing the index in control panel an in regedit but it hasnt worked for me yet. The scanning process could not be completed on the content source < winrt : // { S- 1-5-21-3028225449-1158352766-2429269573-1001 } / > .Context: program Catalog System IndexDetails:Wrong parameter. ( HRESULT : 0x80070057 ) ( 0x80070057 ) - System - Provider [ Name] Microsoft-Windows-Search [ Guid] {CA4E628D-8567-4896-AB6B-835B221F373F} [ EventSourceName] Windows Search Service - EventID 3036 [ Qualifiers] 32768 Version 0 Level 3 Task 3 Opcode 0 Keywords 0x80000000000000 - TimeCreated [ SystemTime] 2015-01-10T14:10:05.000000000Z EventRecordID 3873 Correlation - Execution [ ProcessID] 0 [ ThreadID] 0 Channel Application Computer patti Security - EventData ExtraInfo Kontekst: programmet , kataloget SystemIndex Detaljer: Forkert parameter. (HRESULT : 0x80070057) (0x80070057) URL winrt://{S-1-5-21-3028225449-1158352766-2429269573-1001}/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripredacus Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 It is my understanding that these 3036 errors can be ignored unless you are having trouble finding files known to actually exist in your search path. Is this the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 A "think outside the box" approach I've adopted is to completely disable indexing. As I use SSD storage, actual searches aren't really slower than indexed searches. And it's always struck me that indexing the contents of a drive then storing the results on that drive just isn't a logically viable / reasonable approach. Beyond it adding instability (observed in practice), it also by design excludes a lot of data - it has to. You can't, for example, search for anything in .log files right out of the box. And you can only search for text strings that conform to some idea of what Microsoft things you'll want to search for. Disabling indexing comes with the upside that it will not make errors and log unwelcome messages in your logs. Just saying. If you're interested in trying disabling and walking away from it, here's the full monty on how to do it... Do these things in the order given: -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripredacus Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I personally disable indexing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osRe Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 An indexed search is obviously faster if you search for an indexed keyword, like the filename. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Did you do measurements? At one point I did. It actually wasn't noticeably faster on the system I tested with to search for the kinds of things I needed (e.g., strings in files). I suggest you compare it to a good search tool, like grepWin. Perhaps that's different today, and is almost certainly different on different systems, but that the indexing doesn't cover everything, not to mention the likelihood of a corrupted index (no one's ever seeing that happen, right?) is enough for me to ditch it and not look back. When I get an indication that something I'm searching for is not found, I'm sure it's not on the disk. By the way, I think Classic Shell does its own indexing for Start menu searches if you turn off the system indexing. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Example: 14 seconds to find all filenames that contain the string "sRGB" on a system volume with a little under 800,000 files: -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osRe Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure what's indexed inside files, but filenames should be okay. 14 seconds is slow, don't you reckon? Why would the index get corrupted, or if it does, why without the corruption being detected? The greatest problem with the Windows search is the horrible horrible GUI in Explorer. Another case of progress being made backwards. Also Metro isn't good, but at least for the braindead Metro format it fits and makes more sense. In most cases I just use dir ... </s /p>. Edited January 13, 2015 by shae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripredacus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 -Noel This right here is an example of why indexing seems like a wasted effort. Third party search programs like the one Noel posted, as well as the locate32 that I use, prove this. I presume these programs search similar to what we had built-in XP or the previous one in Win9x. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) 14 seconds is slow, don't you reckon? How quickly can you find all the files that have sRGB in their names on your whole hard drive, out of how many files? The more typical search is of a few folders, which is virtually instant. In practice, this works just fine. Even when I'm looking for a file on the whole volume, I'm willing to wait 14 seconds for rigorous results, which Windows Search cannot deliver. If you're looking for things INSIDE files, this tool, grepWin, even tells you if it can't open a file. It also looks for Unicode strings - something Windows Search won't do. So if you get an empty result, you can be absolutely sure the string you're searching for is not there. And grepWin costs a whole $0.00. As far as why a Windows index would get corrupted, do you suspect Microsoft employees of writing perfect, bug-free code? That works perfectly on low quality computer systems bought for the lowest price? -Noel Edited January 14, 2015 by NoelC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Here's an exercise to try: Search for the following string inside all files under your C:Windows\System32 folder: IEC61966-2.1 It's a simple text string, and it IS in at least one file. See if an indexed Windows Search turns it up, and time how long it takes. "But wait!" Microsoft would say, "Regular people don't need to search for stuff like that!" Now you begin to understand why I complain so much about Microsoft taking modern systems further and further away from serious computing and toward fluff. -Noel Edited January 14, 2015 by NoelC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osRe Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I don't have much indexed (90K files it claims). Searches generally take <1sec, at least in the Metro pane. When Explorer search acts stupid, like when you start searching in an unindexed directory, instead of first showing indexed results and those from the current directory, it starts crunching the disk and only after a while starts listing something. I would expect the search indexer to be relatively free of bugs, and to be able to detect corruption if it happens. While you can never expect the situation to be perfect, unless I have specific reasons to believe a tool is unreliable I start by assuming it works. I haven't analyzed the indexer's behavior in depth so maybe I'm missing something, but so far in Win8 I didn't encounter unusual results. I'm not talking about indexing of the contents of files. I don't know how Windows handles it, so I don't use it. Anyway, I don't have %windir% indexed. But really, if you don't want to use Windows's indexer use another file indexer. You like the maximize performance, so I don't understand why you're okay with a 14 second delay on a simple filename search. There's nothing inherently unreliable in indexing. This forum wouldn't work well at all without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Indexing is useless for my needs. Your mileage may vary. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now