I think this one is pretty critical to take Photostructure from being a cool way to explore my photos to being a tool that I can use to find specific photos. As it stands, if I want to find photos of “Sam Whatshisface”, I have two options:
go to the Keywords page and scroll down through the hundreds of alphabetically sorted Keywords until I get to “Sam Whatshisface”
or
try to find a recent photo that has Sam in it, and then use the context streams to pull up the “Sam Whatshisface” stream
Expanding on this, searching REALLY becomes useful when you can search for photos that have multiple matching keywords. Being able to find all photos of Sam AND myself is a fantastic tool!
I think this feature is a must-have. I would like to click a Search button and instantly find the keyword or date or place that I put into the metadata before. Use Adobe Lightroom Classic as an example of the nearly great metadata searching capabilities
Update 2021-03-24: I was able to add before: and after: namespaces, but as the MATCH operator doesn’t have a NOT MATCH sibling, I had to remove the - query negation from the grammar.
Update 2021-03-24: OMG I figured out how to do negation, but only for namespaced query terms.
I was able to add --query support to the list tool, so queries are going to be available to both the UI and the CLI:
$ ./photostructure list --help
Usage: list [options]
List paths in a Library.
Options:
...
--query <TERMS...> Apply the given query and return all matching asset file
paths. Must be the last argument. Incompatible with
--where.
-j --json Emit a JSON object for every asset file with "hidden"
and "shown" flags
--dump Emit a JSON object that includes all column values
--where <WHERE> Apply a SQL WHERE clause to filter the rows returned.
(default: "")
--orderby <ORDERBY> Apply a SQL ORDER BY clause to filter the rows returned.
(default: "")
I had a bit of a hitch in my search giddyup: SQLite doesn’t support multiple MATCH clauses, so I had to teach PhotoStructure how to condense these queries down to disjunctive normal form. This seems like it works now, and I’m building out the frontend now.
If you’ve emailed me logs or asked for support for the last day or two, know that I’ll be getting to your message soon.
Well, I assumed you have multiple AND conditions that’s why I suggested INTERSECT but I think if you rewrite the generating code to use INTERSECT for AND clause and UNION ALL for OR clause, you don’t need to convert to any normal forms and use it as is. But obviously my idea requires at least performance check
@mrm I’ve checked the documentation for your search feature and it looks really awesome. I suggest to consider more convenient syntax for date ranges which, in my opinion, going to be one of the most used filters.
Please also consider some libraries for parsing dates like date:"last Friday"
I would be nice if you also think how to fix one annoying issue all DAMs have. If you have hierarchical keywords a/b/c and you look for a/b there should be a way to distinguish cases when you want to find exactly that keyword without its descendants. Maybe it could be solved by kw:a/b AND -kw:a/b/* but it would be nice to have neater syntax for that case
This is interesting to me, because I actually don’t think I’ll use date ranges very much. I’m much more interested in searching by people and keywords, especially in combination.
Obviously neither of us is right or wrong, but it does underscore that there are lots of different preferred use cases.