Matthieu <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 38 lines --]
> Le sam. 29 sept. 2018 à 03:03, Chris Green <
[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > I was just thinking while watching Digikam scan through a lot of
> > images, is there any (much?) advantage to be gained by putting
> > Digikam's database on a different disk drive from the image files?
> >
>
> Digikam will be faster if the database engine/server is located on the
> server/desktop which launches digikam: you'll reduce the network latency.
> If your pictures are stored on a network storage, no matter of where is
> located your database, it will be slow: digikam must check the pictures to
> identify new ones: the bottleneck is your network speed and your NAS
> performances.
> MySQL is by default slower than SQLite but using SQLite does not allow to
> have an integrity constraint violations and so your database could be
> corrupted.
>
> My feedback from my NAS storage pictures management with digikam: MySQL is
> not an option when you have a large number of pictures (when migrating from
> SQLite to MySQL I've seen that many of my data have to be processed back).
> Both CIFS and NFS protocols offered quite the same performances.
> After my migration from 5.9 to 6 beta, the average performances increased.
> I tuned a bit MySQL to manage my 25k pictures.
>
> hope it can help.
>
By 'on a different disk drive' I meant a different disk drive on the
*same* computer. So, network speed doesn't come into it at all, I
realise that accessing any part of Digikam's data across a network
will obviouslybe a lot slower than a local disk drive.
--
Chris Green
·
Locked
