I do not understand why a playlist-only scan should require a cleanup of
the database.
I have been asked not to discuss this in the bug tracker; apparently
extremely long, potentially unnecessary scanning is not considered a
bug. (Possibly it's a feature?)
My comments from bug 6308 are listed
If a playlist contains items which are not in your database, the
playlist scan adds them to the database. This is probably why a
cleanup is required.
--
andyg
andyg's Profile:
Nope, that is not it. I took an existing playlist, whose entries were
already all in the database, chopped it down to four songs, saved it
under a different name, and requested a playlist-only scan. The
playlist portion, as usual, took about 30 seconds.
Now it is running Merge Various Artists
On 21-Jan-08, at 8:25 AM, smr888 wrote:
Is this really necessary?
for the time being, yes it is.
-kdf
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Andy, I have exactly the same experience as the OP. My system does a
full clear and rescan at 4am and I have not added any music today. I
use MusicIP, but no changes to the database/cache there either. I also
get 2 database cleanups on a playlist only scan as follows (c/p):
-Playlist Scan (
for the time being, yes it is.
This is the second unhelpful response you've given me, kdf. Would you
please not respond to me if you don't have something useful to say?
I'd appreciate it. Your responses make me want to stop reporting bugs,
and if that is your intention, you are succeeding
for the time being, yes it is.
This is the second unhelpful response you've given me, kdf.
I'm sorry you feel that way. However, it was intended as a very simple
response to a simple question. The process is there for many reasons.
Every check through playlists involves gathering new data
Thank you. Obviously there is more to the process than is dreamt of in
my philosophy.
--
smr888
smr888's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2658
View this thread:
Thank you. Obviously there is more to the process than is dreamt of in
my philosophy.
If it helps, I believe the idea is that it should make db access cleaner,
faster and more stable later on.
What I don't know offhand is what the specifics are of phase '1' and '2'.
-kdf
Those aren't additional scans. They're phases of the scanning process.
Are they necessary when no new tracks have been added to the database?
Probably not all of them. That could be raised as a bug or enhancement
request. Lots of room for optimization.
--
JJZolx
Jim
Lots of room for optimization.
Optimisation is an ingoing process, and not applicable as a bug report
unless there is a specific benchmark to be achieved. A goal without a
specific, measurable result is of dubious value.
The optimise process is simply a call for mysql to optimise the tables.
I tried to raise this as a bug (that is, to discuss it within an already
reported bug, 6308, that was similar to what I was commenting on) and
was told to discuss enhancements and the implementation out here in the
forums . . .
--
smr888
kdf;261169 Wrote:
Optimisation is an ingoing process, and not applicable as a bug report
unless there is a specific benchmark to be achieved. A goal without a
specific, measurable result is of dubious value.
Not really, but you're entitled to your opinion.
If the server is doing A and B and
If the server is doing A and B and C and D, while B, C and D are
unnecessary in some cases, and taking 80% of the time required, then
requesting that those processes be eliminated would seem to be a
logical request.
Eliminating isn't 'optimising'. Removing an entire process is a specific
kdf;261193 Wrote:
Eliminating isn't 'optimising'.
Tell that to the guy waiting 10 minutes to scan a playlist when it
should take 30 seconds.
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile:
kdf;261193 Wrote:
Eliminating isn't 'optimising'.
Tell that to the guy waiting 10 minutes to scan a playlist when it
should take 30 seconds.
I'm referring to your choice of word, Jim, not saying elimination doesn't
have beneficial effects. Simple elimination, however, isn't the case
here,
it's far easier to demad change than to implement it (less
accountability in the former).
I agree with that. But one should consider the user experience. If a
scan is described as playlist-only when it is actually NOT tracks,
then playlists, then every other housekeeping task we usually do, it
kdf;261206 Wrote:
I'm referring to your choice of word, Jim, not saying elimination
doesn't have beneficial effects.
If eliminating unnecessary steps in a process is not a form of
optimizing that process, then I don't know what is.
--
JJZolx
Jim
kdf;261206 Wrote:
I'm referring to your choice of word, Jim, not saying elimination
doesn't have beneficial effects.
If eliminating unnecessary steps in a process is not a form of
optimizing that process, then I don't know what is.
Only if it does any good. Premature optimisation...etc
smr smr888 writes:
Consider further the user preparing for a Christmas party, who is
simply trying to get a playlist into SlimServer, and finds himself
waiting ten minutes every time he tweaks the playlist and wants to try
it again, and you might begin to understand the frustration that
20 matches
Mail list logo
