Yes (although there is still a substantial speed-up, especially for ratings).
Have you tried Pascal's suggestion of adding new indices to the 'tagged_images' table? I am going to try that when I get the time. -- August Schwerdfeger [email protected] On 3/10/19 3:29 PM, Ed Gaillard wrote: > Thank you for the information. I'm glad to know that it isn't an issue > with 2.6 or Windows. > > I see that collecting by film roll as you suggest (or by folder ) > makes darktable much faster going to and from the darkroom, but it is > still quite sluggish adding tags and ratings. Is that what you > experience as well? > > Thanks, > Ed > > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:59 PM August Schwerdfeger > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I strongly doubt that your issues have anything to do with either > version 2.6 or Windows specifically. I have been using Darktable with > large databases for quite a while, and have encountered these same > issues on every operating system (except Windows) and every Darktable > version from 1.4 onward, despite continuous improvements (in early > versions, when the number of tags in the database increased, it took > minutes rather than seconds to tag an image). > > One thing that helps for me is to collect by film roll or color label > rather than by tag whenever possible -- for some reason, even image > editing in the darkroom mode is slower when collect-by-tag is > being used. > > -- > August Schwerdfeger > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > On 3/9/19 9:31 PM, Ed Gaillard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm a new darktable user, using the Windows port. I have a > database of > > about 200000 photos, which I had tagged using AfterShot, and used a > > script found online to convert those XMP files to darktable's > format, > > then began importing them into darktable a few folders at a time > while > > also importing my new photos straight into darktable. This all went > > well, so around the time I had 40000 images in the database, I > > upgraded to 2.6 and then imported the rest of my photos all at once. > > Probably it was a mistake to do both of those at the same time.. > > > > Anyway, some aspects of performance with this large database are > very > > slow. Selecting multiple photos in the lighttable file manager mode > > (which I normally use) takes several seconds, applying a star rating > > to them takes many seconds (30 seconds or more); typing a tag in the > > metadata pane takes several seconds. Going from lighttable to > darkroom > > takes a few seconds, but going back to light table takes nearly > a minute. > > > > On the other hand,collecting images using a tag is very very fast, > > which seems inconsistent with the other problems being down the size > > of the database. Also, when I switch to the zoomable light > table, the > > slow operations (except for typing tags) are somewhat to much > faster, > > but still too slow to be really usable. > > > > All this behavior persists on version 2.6.1, which I just installed. > > So, is anyone else using the Windows version with such a large > > database and having problems? Is there anything I can configure in > > darktable that might help? I suppose I could reimport the photos > into > > several smaller databases, but that seems painful. > > > > Thanks, > > Ed Gaillard > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > > [email protected] > <mailto:darktable-user%[email protected]> > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > darktable user mailing list > to unsubscribe send a mail to > [email protected] > <mailto:darktable-user%[email protected]> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > [email protected] ____________________________________________________________________________ darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
