[APBeta] DSS Image library

[Jeff Young]

I would be in favor of anything that sped up the DSS image cache management.  It (and closing documents) are the only two performance areas in V2 that currently bother me.

As for backups, I don't bother with most caches.  They are, after all, replaceable from the same source from whence they came.

-- Jeff.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: apbeta-bounces at lists.astroplanner.net [mailto:apbeta-bounces at lists.astroplanner.net] On Behalf Of
> RPEHLM
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:07 AM
> To: AstroPlanner Beta Testers
> Subject: Re: [APBeta] DSS Image library
> 
> Suits me Paul.  Especially if it makes it easier to switch between
> different database files.
> 
> Is that a way for Michael to keep his file sizes manageable for
> TimeMachine?  I'm thinking of separate DSS image databases for different
> projects.  Obviously it is up to the user to switch databases and to
> remember to do so before downloading new images!  Just a thunk (and an
> early morning one at that<g>).
> 
> Regards
> Robin
> 
> Paul Rodman wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Currently, in V1 and V2, the DSS/user image library consists of a
> > whole mess of image files, other files containing info pertinent to
> > those images, and an image index, which is really just a database of
> > file paths.
> >
> > This way of doing things has/had the advantage of being flexible,
> > friendly to incremental backups, etc. However, it's also slow, and has
> > a lot of spaghetti code surrounding it which is buggy and difficult to
> > maintain/extend. I'm getting a lot of bugs reported related to this
> > feature.
> >
> > What I propose is to create a single-file database of the images and
> > attendant information. This would have the advantages of much faster
> > access, less chance of corruption, smaller and more maintainable code,
> > and easier extension to support new sources, etc.
> >
> > The disadvantages would be be (a) those of any large single file, such
> > as backing up, etc., a single corruption damaging the entire
> > database*, etc., and (b) non-backwards-compatibility with V1.6.
> >
> > I don't see (b) as a problem going forward.
> >
> > The size of the file would be approximately the size of the DSS Image
> > Cache folder now, so you wouldn't be saving/losing disk space.
> >
> > I would probably read the current cache to create the initial
> > database, so you wouldn't have to download all those pesky images again
> >
> > What do you people think about this? Please air your views here or
> > privately with me.
> >
> > Paul R.
> >
> > * I would be using the SQLite database format, which is very robust
> > and efficient - in both speed and use of disk space.
> > _______________________________________________
> > APBeta mailing list
> > APBeta at lists.astroplanner.net
> > http://lists.astroplanner.net/listinfo.cgi/apbeta-astroplanner.net
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> APBeta mailing list
> APBeta at lists.astroplanner.net
> http://lists.astroplanner.net/listinfo.cgi/apbeta-astroplanner.net