Scan for new items takes ages after syncing collection btw. two computers

[Eduard Zalar]

Why do you try to sync the DB file?

I thought about syncing 2 or more PCs also, but I never had the idea to
sync the DB file.

To be honest, I have not yet implemented my idea for syncing, but I thought
that it is sufficient to sync the pictures only.

With every sync, digiKam would detect some new or changed pics, but that
should not take so long... Every unchanged/unsynced file is detected as
unchanged.

I would try to let the DB file under digiKams control and never try to copy
it...
At least as long as you use the SQLite engine.

Philip Tuckey <philtuckey at free.fr> schrieb am Mo., 30. Jan. 2017, 18:09:

> Me too. I see the same behaviour when switching between dk running native
> on OS X, and running under Linux in a VM on the same machine. Database and
> image files are shared with the VM. Only the configuration files are
> specific to each OS.
> Philip
>
>
> On 28 January 2017 22:48:37 CET, "news at tcrass.de"
> <torsten.crass at eBiology.de> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> there's one thing I've been wondering about for quite a while:
>
> I use unison (https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/ -- great
> tool!) for syncing my photo collection (including digikam4.db) between
> desktop and laptop computer. I take great care not to add or edit photos
> on both computers simultaneously, so every syncing process is actually a
> clean copy operation from one machine to the other. Yet, when, after
> syncinc, I launch digikam on the target machine, it apparently does a
> full scan of all items in the collection, which takes ages, even if only
> a few photos have actually been added or changed. However, when
> re-launching digiakm on the same machine without immediately preceeding
> sync, the new items scan takes only a few seconds.
>
> So how does digikam decide which folders and images are to be
> re-scanned? How can digikam possibly 'know' that there has been going on
> something else than just local file changes?
>
> The only idea I came up with is that digikam might somehow detects the
> changes in its database file's meta data (like file size, access time,
> md5 hash value...) with respect to its last run on the same machine
> which were introduced during syncing.
>
> Any comments appreciated!
>
> Cheers --
>
> -- Torsten
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20170130/fcbd7501/attachment.html>