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

[stancs3]

Would we expect similar results if the database was in a mysql server?
The server would in theory remain a constant, and become attached to
the new machine. I am actually getting ready to do just such a thing. I
have a current VM with digikam and am preparing a new VM. If interested
I will post my progress, but it won't be until I clean up my backup
image data storage, which will take me a few more weeks at the rate I
am going.

On a different sceanario, I moved a mysql db from one server VM to a
different server VM, and pointed a non-changed digikam to the new
server. It was no problem. It did notice the db was on a different
server, but just proceeded to work.

In essence I always opt for a real db when possible. It takes some
learning offline, but it is worth it. Postgresql is even better than
mysql, so someday ..... :)


On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 22:43 -0600, Jim Gomi wrote:
> I would strongly advise against including the digikam4.db file in the
> synchronization when syncing between two different machines.
> I ended up with a corrupted database file that way, and it was a lot
> of
> effort to un-corrupt it
> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/2017-January/023348.html
> 
> It's much safer to configure digikam to write all tags etc to the
> image
> files, and then just sync the image files. 
> It's true that after syncing you have to wait while the database is
> rebuilt, but at least you know that you'll end up with a clean
> correct
> database.
>