File explorer where I don’t type all of D:/F1/F2/F3/F4/X to get/open folder or file X, but I type (part of) F2 and F4 and it immediately (yes, indexing etc.) offers me X as a result (and maybe the few others that fit the pattern)
If I have an insane amount of subfolders/files, maybe it indexes better those with recent or regular access.
Extension: A version on steroids might index even file-seek results of files and index on (my or so) most common searched words. Find if that’s a bit too extravagant.
Useful in traditional file structures, as we then type/think/remember less. Plus, it might encourage a step towards more tag-based file organization which I feel might be useful more generally, though that’s just a potential side-effect and not the basic aim.
It sounds like you want fzf (or similar). It’s not arbitrarily fast, but it’s pretty fast and I think there are somewhat faster competitors. It doesn’t use indexing because indexing wasn’t needed for pretty fast speeds.
File explorer where I don’t type all of
D:/F1/F2/F3/F4/Xto get/open folder or file X, but I type (part of)F2andF4and it immediately (yes, indexing etc.) offers me X as a result (and maybe the few others that fit the pattern)If I have an insane amount of subfolders/files, maybe it indexes better those with recent or regular access.
Extension: A version on steroids might index even file-seek results of files and index on (my or so) most common searched words. Find if that’s a bit too extravagant.
Useful in traditional file structures, as we then type/think/remember less. Plus, it might encourage a step towards more tag-based file organization which I feel might be useful more generally, though that’s just a potential side-effect and not the basic aim.
It sounds like you want fzf (or similar). It’s not arbitrarily fast, but it’s pretty fast and I think there are somewhat faster competitors. It doesn’t use indexing because indexing wasn’t needed for pretty fast speeds.