[Digikam-users] svn version memory usage

[D Bera]

> > I guess what I am asking is why isnt the memory usage after
> > image-editor same as that before ? I might be ok when I am using
> > image-editor since I understand it has to do lots of things, but when
> > I close it, things should be back to normal. (BTW, the image-editor
> > felt much snappy in 0.8.x series, dunno what changed).
>
> The cache is only for opening the image, and shared by the histogram loader
> and the image editor. Closing the image editor does not mean you wont open it
> again.

While its true that closing it doesnt mean it wont be opened again,
but keeping the whole imageeditor in memory in anticipation that it
will be opened again doesnt sound that right. The situation is
different than photoshop which is only used for image-editing. But
digikam is also used for image viewing/browsing pictures. If I decide
to crop some image while browsing my images, currently the imageeditor
stays in memory even after I am done with cropping. That seems unfair.
I point out in my other post in this thread that creating editorwindow
with flag WDestructiveClose actually removes the window when closing
it and I didnt find any perceptible difference when editorwindow was
invoked again. I am sure there is a good reason for not deleting
imageeditor when it is closed, just that I dont see it.

> Snappiness is very subjective.

:) yes. I meant in 0.8.x series, when I double clicked an image, I
very quickly got this imageeditor window (or whatever it was called)
and I can see the images full-screen there. Now when I want to see a
picture full-screen there is no option other than double-clicking the
image - which does this whole complicated thing thinking I want to
edit the image. I mention in a later post to the list that while
imageeditor is taking about 5-10 times more time to load the same
jpeg. In effect, I want to see a picture full screen, I double click,
wait for 4-5 seconds for the picture to load and this continues even
when I press next/previous. Thats what I see different from 0.8.x
series.

> > I am sorry I didnt quite understand the conclusion :(. Are you saying
> > that the memory usage is normal(read: as expected) or agreeing that
> > there is a leak worth investigating?
>
> I did not find any leak. I won't investigate the heap usage below 10MB. As to
> optimizing, it's pretty clear where the large part of the memory is used. And
> with out decision to store the image as a "blob" in memory, that's it.
> If you want to edit really large images, really larger than any photos taken
> with a digital camera, you need memory anyway, and Photoshop.

I did some more experiments and I didnt find any leak. Except things
were using too much memory. And it could be due the pixmap. Sounds
fair.

Thanks for clarifying,
- dBera

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Debajyoti Bera @ http://dtecht.blogspot.com
beagle / KDE fan
Mandriva / Inspiron-1100 user