<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/12/8, Andreas Weigl <<a href="mailto:Andreas.Weigl@silicoids-world.de">Andreas.Weigl@silicoids-world.de</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi<br><br>Am Saturday 08 December 2007 schrieb Dotan Cohen:<br>> > If find prints some files then new files have been written or changed. If<br>> > their are no new files than the caching in general works.<br>
> > I did this on my system. No new files here.<br>><br>> No new files.<br><br>This means the caching basically works. Good.<br><br>> I ran Recreate Thumbnails, then touch testfile, then browse a few<br>> directories. Sure enough, there are some new files in ~/.thumbnails.
<br>> So I've either hit a limit or there is a caching problem. How can I<br>> test that?<br><br>I think this can only be answered by the developers because I do not know the<br>caching algorithm.<br><br>Does anybody know a description of the algorithm besides the source code?
</blockquote><div><br>This is the code of thumbs cache implementation:<br><br><a href="http://websvn.kde.org/branches/extragear/kde3/graphics/digikam/digikam/pixmapmanager.h?revision=670778&view=markup">http://websvn.kde.org/branches/extragear/kde3/graphics/digikam/digikam/pixmapmanager.h?revision=670778&view=markup
</a><br><a href="http://websvn.kde.org/branches/extragear/kde3/graphics/digikam/digikam/pixmapmanager.cpp?revision=670778&view=markup">http://websvn.kde.org/branches/extragear/kde3/graphics/digikam/digikam/pixmapmanager.cpp?revision=670778&view=markup
</a><br><br>PixmapManager class use internally QCache from Qt to store thumb in memory. All is explained in Qt API doc<br><br><a href="http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/qcache.html">http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/qcache.html</a>
<br><br>Note than QCache instance is used with this constructor :<br><br>QCache<QPixmap>(101, 211);<br> <br>Gilles Caulier<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> An instant. However, in ~/.thumbnails/large it took 3.5 seconds, and<br>> in ~/.thumbnails/normal another 3.5 seconds.<br><br>So you do not have a problem with reading the directory contents. I didn't<br>thought you have but it is always good to check.
<br><br>> > You can not clean the .thumbnails directory (you cache would be gone).<br>> > But I saw that "all files" are in one directory. A structure like squid<br>> > or postfix is usally much more performant.
<br>><br>> Is that something that I can arrange, or would it be an internal digikam<br>> issue?<br><br>This is digikam internal.<br><br>If I have some time I will have a look on the source code. But my C<br>programming skills are very poor.
<br><br><br>Andreas<br>--<br>My Public GPG Key:<br><a href="http://www.silicoids-world.de/gpg.asc">http://www.silicoids-world.de/gpg.asc</a><br><br>Too much is just enough.<br> -- Mark Twain, on whiskey<br>
_______________________________________________<br>Digikam-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Digikam-users@kde.org">Digikam-users@kde.org</a><br><a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>