General Performance Issues Viewing Large Pictures

[Thomas D]

With raw photos and panoramic photos it is not unusual with each photo
being between 20-50MB each.
1GB is only 20 photos of 50 MB.

I would really like at least an option to specify cache size manually to
either a specific size or as a percentage of physical ram.

Would it be problematic to add such option?

I have a 16GB MacBook also in which I would very much like more than 1GB on
as well. Because when I do serious photo stuff I don’t do much else. So I
would like to utilize my resources.

The penalty of not having an image in cache often involves fetching it over
the network on a SAN.



man. 26. jun. 2023 kl. 22.18 skrev Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com>:

> I adjusted it again, from about 16GB main memory it will be about 1 GB
> cache.
> Much more doesn't make sense since we always preload two images into the
> cache
> (before and after the current position). Depending on the size of the
> images,
> more will be retained when scrolling back and forth.
>
> Maik
>
> Am Montag, 26. Juni 2023, 22:07:06 CEST schrieb Tonio Kroeger:
> > WAAAAAHHHHHHHH! :-) Yes 64GB. And now everything makes sense. Moreover I
> > had a try with: digiKam-8.1.0-20230617T074456-x86-64.appimage
> > The difference is tremendous. Thanks a lot!
> >
> > Tonio
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:42 PM Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Is the specification of 64GB for the memory correct?
> > > With this size, we calculate the image cache incorrectly, only a very
> > > small
> > > cache is created, so no larger images are preloaded in the preview. The
> > > problem will be fixed in digiKam-8.1.0.
> > >
> > > Maik
> > >
> > > Am Montag, 26. Juni 2023, 18:12:19 CEST schrieb Tonio Kroeger:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I am an enthusiastic digikam user for nearly 20 years now!
> > > >
> > > > I am running 8.0.0. on an I7 under Linux with plenty of RAM (
> > >
> > >
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/205608/intel-nuc-11-p
> > > ro>
> > > > -mini-pc-nuc11tnkv7/specifications.html). My picture collection
> became
> > >
> > > huge,
> > >
> > > > about 8TB (also many RAW files, roughly 300.000 Jpegs), and I still
> use
> > > > SQLLite for the database.
> > > >
> > > > In general everything works fine but when I switch to another picture
> > >
> > > this
> > >
> > > > takes up to 3 seconds. This is very anyoing especially when sorting
> out
> > > > pictures. For the latter purpose I store incoming pictues on the
> > > > internal
> > > > SSD but this leads exactly to the 3 seconds from above, external
> > >
> > > USB-drive
> > >
> > > > is worse but not as worse as I would expect. I tried to precache all
> > > > pictures into RAM, that did not significantly help. When I lower the
> > > > maximal CPU frequency this seems to scale linearly with the time to
> show
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > > > new picture.
> > > >
> > > > Over the years my pictures became larger and larger. Today I have
> Jpegs
> > > > around 20MB. (5MB Pics from my IPhone show up very fast.)
> > > >
> > > > I wonder whether someone can give a hint where I might have an issue
> > > > with
> > > > my system. Is SQLLite a problem in my setting? Or are the 3 seconds
> just
> > >
> > > my
> > >
> > > > fate because of the many megapixel...
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes & tnx
> > > >
> > > > Tonio
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20230626/65a3556d/attachment-0001.htm>