[Digikam-users] Mysql/MariaDb database expert needs...

[Gilles Caulier]

If somebody is interrested, there are 3 Sqlite SQL statement to convert to
MySql in digiKam DB XML config file.

>From there :

https://projects.kde.org/projects/extragear/graphics/digikam/repository/revisions/master/entry/data/database/dbconfig.xml.cmake.in#L1427

to :

https://projects.kde.org/projects/extragear/graphics/digikam/repository/revisions/master/entry/data/database/dbconfig.xml.cmake.in#L1491

This about Face database table, indexes, and triggers to create in relevant
database.

This code is the same for SQlite, but it don't yet ported. I must be easy
to do it as we have a similar sall dataabse definition for thumbnails
storage.

The XML config file is divided in too part : on for Sqlite on the first,
one others for Mysql. Comparing both section is easy since i commented all
parts to be maintainable easily.

Gilles Caulier



2015-11-12 18:21 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>:

>
>
> 2015-11-12 18:12 GMT+01:00 Richard Mortimer <richm+digikam at oldelvet.org.uk
> >:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/2015 16:38, Henrique Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> >
>> >     The one advantage of having separate databases is for backup
>> purposes.
>> >     The thumbnail database in particular can be massive and having it
>> >     separate makes it easier especially since it is basically throwaway
>> data
>> >     anyway.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is true. But still easy to remove or drop the tables related to it.
>> > Only "problem" would be the backup size, as it would include the
>> > thumbnails..
>> Yes. That's my point. Dropping the tables isn't practical on a nightly
>> basis. I currently have separated databases and the "main" database
>> backup is 1.5 MB compressed but the thumbnails database is 650 MB
>> compressed.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >     The performance of MySQL doesn't really come into it. You can in
>> theory
>> >     partition different databases into different locations/disks etc.
>> and
>> >     that might be of interest to some but it would be a pretty special
>> >     use case.
>> >
>> >     I think that the correct default would be to use a common name for
>> all
>> >     three but allow separate names if required.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think teh default should be one database also.
>> >
>> > I guess, having the possibility to separate the databases  would
>> > introduce much more work right? I am not sure.. not a developer..  i
>> > only know some about infrastructure .
>> You can already separate them and I would like to see that capability
>> remain if possible.
>>
>
> yes, this will stay like this in code. I will improved the configuration
> dialog with an advanced settings view when users want to use separated
> databases.
>
> This will be more clear for non technical users.
>
> Gilles Caulier
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20151112/05c75fa1/attachment.html>