Various folders various drives depth:1

Discussion related to "Everything" 1.5.
Post Reply
eswul62
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:07 am

Various folders various drives depth:1

Post by eswul62 »

I am puzzling on the following

Everything should display rootfolders only of ( for example)
FolderA|FolderB|FolderC|FolderD

I am using: FolderA|FolderB|FolderC|FolderD Depth:1

However, I want an exact match of above folders, i.e. folders where either one of the above is part of the name, should skipped.

e.g.
I need: Recordings (G:\Recordings\)
But I do not need Audio Recordings (G:\Audio Recordings\)
or
I need Music (J:\Music\)
but do not need "Music from..." (I:\Music from\)

Secondly, also I tried to limit the results to specific drives, like:
(G:|J:|I:) FolderA|FolderB|FolderC|FolderD Depth:1
or
(G:\|J:\|I:\) FolderA|FolderB|FolderC|FolderD Depth:1

I did not get the results I wanted, so I left the idea of adding drive letters.

If only I get the exact folders match (like G:\Recordings\) to be displayed, that is fine as well.

Note: FolderA|FolderB|FolderC|FolderD are on all these 3 drives, I just want to compare the sizes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!
NotNull
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 9:22 pm

Re: Various folders various drives depth:1

Post by NotNull »

Something like the following?

Code: Select all

depth:1  exact:<windows|users|"program files">
(Which should skip "C:\program files (x86)" )
reitwal
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Various folders various drives depth:1

Post by reitwal »

Please use < > for grouping instead of ( )
i.e. <G:\|J:\|I:\> instead of (G:\|J:\|I:\)
NotNull
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 9:22 pm

Re: Various folders various drives depth:1

Post by NotNull »

Alternative:
G:;I:;J:
eswul62
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Various folders various drives depth:1

Post by eswul62 »

Sorry for the delay.
Thanks for the feedback!

Exact
is exactly what I needed :-)

G:|J:|I: exact:<folderA|folderB|folderC|folderD> depth:1

worked out well.
Even the < > weren't really necessary: with or without, results were the same.

Anyway, thanks again!
Post Reply