[Digikam-users] Difference between collection types

[Marcel Wiesweg]

> It looks like theree is simply no additional tagging going on.  Lets look
> at one image that has tags in my original local collection (which is
> actually pointing to a mounted samba share).  Its name is CRW_1507.CRW.
>
> sqlite> select * from Images where name='CRW_1507.CRW';
> 33963|3|CRW_1507.CRW|1|1|2006-06-24T17:39:28|2557936|8e3bed88d7cf91c811991e
>86fcf9394c


> 68188|1682|CRW_1507.CRW|1|1|2006-06-24T17:39:28|2557936|f8e04060cbcaa34b5f7
>dd6618259ada4
> 83523|2417|CRW_1507.CRW|1|1|2006-06-24T17:39:28|2557936|f8e04060cbcaa34b5f7
>dd6618259ada4

Ignoring removed images, you see: the hash is different. 8e3... vs. f8e...
Is the file in /home and the file on the network storage bit by bit identical? 
Please verify with the md5 or shasum utility (digikam's hash is md5 only over 
parts of the file)


> > It needed 15 hours to scan a collection??
>
> Yup.  15511 images stored on a NAS samba share.  Digikam running at 28% CPU
> on a Quad Xeon and approx 256 MB/sec constant network throughput.  Think
> something might be wrong?  As you can imagine, Digikam startup with DB scan
> is quite painfull...

A complete scan of 26994 pictures on 39GB, 99% JPEGs, took 12 minutes and 20 
seconds in a short test while writing this mail. A normal application start 
uses <5s for the scan if no files are new. That's local harddisk.
I dont know what is causing the huge performance drop over network storage.
In 15h, 3.5s/picture, you could transfer 900MB of data for every picture over 
the network.