Windows Explorer search file contents not working on .sql files.

D

dba_222

Dear Experts,

I hate to have to post such a seemingly dumb question.
But all the obvious has not worked.

My new XP Pro laptop was recently configured for me.
After installing Teradata SQL Assistant, the .SQL files
were opening with that. But, that was not what I wanted
to use. In Windows, I like to use wordpad.

I work with Oracle scripts, with the suffix: .SQL.
There are hundreds of them.

Like most people, I often forget which file contains what.
So, I usually use Windows Explorer search to find the file.
If I know that the file is concerning GV$PROCESS, I just use
windows explorer to search all files for that keyword.
Usually this works fine.

But, explorer doesn't find a thing in any one of my .SQL files.
Not even the SELECT keyword, which is in almost ALL of them.

I've done the obvious. In Windows explorer.
Tools, folder Options. file types. change it to:
notepad, wordpad, and even MS Word (which usually works).

The file will open with the app that I change it to.

However, any search for the contents for the contents of files,
will always return zero files found!!!

Searching through the registry has not shown anything obvious.

What is the secret to fix this???


Thanks a lot.
 
T

Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)

(snip)
My new XP Pro laptop was recently configured for me.
After installing Teradata SQL Assistant, the .SQL files
were opening with that. But, that was not what I wanted
to use. In Windows, I like to use wordpad.

I work with Oracle scripts, with the suffix: .SQL.
There are hundreds of them.

Like most people, I often forget which file contains what.
So, I usually use Windows Explorer search to find the file.
If I know that the file is concerning GV$PROCESS, I just use
windows explorer to search all files for that keyword.
Usually this works fine.

But, explorer doesn't find a thing in any one of my .SQL files.
Not even the SELECT keyword, which is in almost ALL of them.
(snip)
Click to expand...
Hi,

The search function in Windows XP filters out files to search in based
on file extensions (list can be manipulated, see further below).

My suggestion:

Install the free Agent Ransack, it searches for text strings in *all*
types of files, and not just in a selection of "approved" file extensions
as the built-in search does. It's a *much* better search tool as well...

Download it from here:
http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/default.aspx

Agent Ransack can save the search result to a file (or clipboard), as text,
comma separated text or tab separated text. E.g. Excel reads comma separated
text (csv) very well.

When searching for text inside files, Agent Ransack is also able to do a
preview of the lines the text was found in (just do a single click on the
found file).
Also, you can use regular expression on both the file name part and the find
text in files part.


If you still want to use the not so good search tool that comes
with WinXP to search for text in files, take a look at this:

Using the "A Word or Phrase in the File" Search Criterion May Not Work
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;309173

Or this:

Add Files to Containing text Searches
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/scripts_desc/xp_fix_search.htm
 
D

dba_222

Thanks a lot. This is what I did, just in case anyone
else gets the same issue.

Noted at the registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\ContentIndex\DllsToRegister

that there were a number of dlls to register.
Registered them. Although they remained in the same key.


Change the registry in:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.sql

Add key:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.sql\PersistentHandler


Set this value to:

{5e941d80-bf96-11cd-b579-08002b30bfeb}


Change the app to wordpad.

Reboot to be sure.

Works!
 
T

Twisted One

His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's search
is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score another
"brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such ... Bob ...
paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for directory separator char
.... the list goes on and on!
 
I

Ian Moyce

Twisted said:
His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's
search is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score another
"brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such ... Bob ...
paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for directory separator
char ... the list goes on and on!
Click to expand...

But he is still an MCP.
 
T

Twisted One

Ian said:
Never mind.
Click to expand...

If you wish to communicate whatever you were trying to say before, you
will expand that acronym. If not, I will take it that you actually don't
give a shit if anyone reads what you post, and act accordingly.
 
R

Rebecca

Twisted said:
If you wish to communicate whatever you were trying to say before, you
will expand that acronym. If not, I will take it that you actually
don't give a shit if anyone reads what you post, and act accordingly.
Click to expand...

You're the only one that didn't get it.
 
T

Twisted One

Rebecca said:
You're the only one that didn't get it.
Click to expand...

Why not help me to "get it" then?

Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a potential
audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of knowing for
sure how many of those people may or may not have read that post without
"getting it". Basically, you just presumed to speak for a sizable
fraction of the population of the planet. That is arrogance unsurpassed
in my experience since shrub passed the ****ing patriot act.
 
R

Rebecca

Twisted said:
Why not help me to "get it" then?

Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a
potential audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of
knowing for sure how many of those people may or may not have read
that post without "getting it".
Click to expand...

I polled them.
 
T

Twisted One

Rebecca said:
I polled them.
Click to expand...

You should know that Internet polls are inherently unreliable and
unscientific. That is to say, they prove absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip.
Zero. Zilch. Responders are self-selecting -- there's bias source #1.
Anyone might lie. There's source #2. Unless a lot of hashing and strong
crypto is used, errors will creep in from network unreliability,
Microsoft software, and other sources. This won't produce a systematic
bias, but it will make any results approximate, this destroying any
usefulness for making absolute claims rather than "approximately half of
our respondents chose Pepto-Bismol over the other leading brand" or
whatever. So "Everybody except <name> believes X" and the like are right
out. Also, without good crypto, anyone can stuff the ballot box, alter
someone else's vote, or otherwise corrupt the process, which is bias
source #3. There are probably more bias sources I'm missing, too. :)
 
D

Damian

Twisted said:
You should know that Internet polls are inherently unreliable and
unscientific. That is to say, they prove absolutely nothing. Nada.
Zip. Zero. Zilch. Responders are self-selecting -- there's bias
source #1. Anyone might lie. There's source #2. Unless a lot of
hashing and strong crypto is used, errors will creep in from network
unreliability, Microsoft software, and other sources. This won't
produce a systematic bias, but it will make any results approximate,
this destroying any usefulness for making absolute claims rather than
"approximately half of our respondents chose Pepto-Bismol over the
other leading brand" or whatever. So "Everybody except <name>
believes X" and the like are right out. Also, without good crypto,
anyone can stuff the ballot box, alter someone else's vote, or
otherwise corrupt the process, which is bias source #3. There are
probably more bias sources I'm missing, too. :)
Click to expand...

As I told Rebecca when she polled me, you're the only one who didn't get it.
 
D

Diogenes

Twisted said:
You should know that Internet polls are inherently unreliable and
unscientific. That is to say, they prove absolutely nothing. Nada.
Zip. Zero. Zilch. Responders are self-selecting -- there's bias
source #1. Anyone might lie. There's source #2. Unless a lot of
hashing and strong crypto is used, errors will creep in from network
unreliability, Microsoft software, and other sources. This won't
produce a systematic bias, but it will make any results approximate,
this destroying any usefulness for making absolute claims rather than
"approximately half of our respondents chose Pepto-Bismol over the
other leading brand" or whatever. So "Everybody except <name>
believes X" and the like are right out. Also, without good crypto,
anyone can stuff the ballot box, alter someone else's vote, or
otherwise corrupt the process, which is bias source #3. There are
probably more bias sources I'm missing, too. :)
Click to expand...

Rebecca asked me, and I agreed with her completely.
 
T

Twisted One

Damian said:
As I told Rebecca when she polled me, you're the only one who didn't get it.
Click to expand...

You have no more authority to make such a sweeping claim than she does.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Saving Windows Explorer "search results" 1
Win Explorer - Search file errors 6
Windows not returning all search results 3
Calling Windows Explorer search from VBScript 3
Multi-Word Search in Windows Explorer 2
Can't delete file 3
Windows Explorer Search 2
Search Does Not Work in Windows Explorer 7

Top