[Digikam-users] Massive caching really necessary?

Stedtlund falolaf at gmail.com
Sat Aug 14 18:24:29 BST 2010


Glad to hear it's fixed!

As I had regenerated all my thumbnails, they were in the database already.

Sorry for the noise though... ;)


2010/8/14 Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de>:
> Hi,
> the cache is limited. What you observe is the product of three factors:
> - in an open album, thumbnails are pregenerated. That means if they are not
> yet in the database, they are created, in the background, for the database
> - in 1.3, they were also put in the cache, but that cache is very small. In
> the devel branch, this thumbnailing really only does what it needs to do
> - most important: in 1.3 was a massive memory leak appearing only for this
> pregeneration, that is, when viewing large albums. It is fixed for 1.4.
> Marcel
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list