Massive caching really necessary?

[Anders Stedtlund]

Hi,

Whenever an album is selected there seems to be some caching happening
in the background. I assume it's the thumbnails. Is that correct?  I
have enabled the option to show images from all sub albums when
selecting an album. This means that when I select the root album, all
my images will be shown. At this point this will be just over 11000
images. With this scenario digiKam will allocate 75% of my ram. If I
have other applications open, swaping will hit in and the system will
be sluggish. I have 3GB of ram. What happens if I have 22000 images,
or more...

If another album is selected, digiKam will still be using 75% of my
ram, even if there's only 1 image shown in the new selected album. The
only way to release that memory is to restart digiKam.

My question is if this massive use of ram really is needed or
feasible? There must be better algorithms to use for this?

This behaviour was mentioned some weeks ago (by me) in another thread,
but I think it needs it's own atention.

I'm using digiKam 1.3.0 with openSUSE 11.3, 64 bit.

/Anders
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Marcel Wiesweg]

Hi,

the cache is limited. What you observe is the product of three factors:

- in an open album, thumbnails are pregenerated. That means if they are not
yet in the database, they are created, in the background, for the database
- in 1.3, they were also put in the cache, but that cache is very small. In
the devel branch, this thumbnailing really only does what it needs to do
- most important: in 1.3 was a massive memory leak appearing only for this
pregeneration, that is, when viewing large albums. It is fixed for 1.4.

Marcel
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Anders Stedtlund]

Hi,

Glad to hear it's fixed!

As I had regenerated all my thumbnails, they were in the database already.

Sorry for the noise though... ;)

/Anders

2010/8/14 Marcel Wiesweg <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> the cache is limited. What you observe is the product of three factors:
>
> - in an open album, thumbnails are pregenerated. That means if they are not
> yet in the database, they are created, in the background, for the database
> - in 1.3, they were also put in the cache, but that cache is very small. In
> the devel branch, this thumbnailing really only does what it needs to do
> - most important: in 1.3 was a massive memory leak appearing only for this
> pregeneration, that is, when viewing large albums. It is fixed for 1.4.
>
> Marcel
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users