challenge of network share

[Remco Viëtor]

On jeudi 23 janvier 2025 15:28:13 heure normale d’Europe centrale 
thomas.weg at abwesend.de wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Thank you for this fine piece of software (8.6). It gets better and better
> with each release. 
> However, I am currently somewhat dissatisfied with my workflow and would
> like to benefit from your experience. These points should not be taken as
> criticism, I'm just describing challenges in my workflow that I don't know
> how to improve as a beginner.  
> I have some images on a network drive that is connected very slowly. The
> databases are all stored locally on a SSD. The fact that the initial import
> process takes a little longer is not a problem for me. Unfortunately, the
> subsequent keywording process is also very slow and it sometimes takes
> several seconds to switch to the next image. I currently open the images in
> Preview to add faces or other markers. I assume that Preview creates
> previews from the real images and does not use the thumbnails. Is there a
> way to change this? Or what is your workflow here? I would also like to be
> able to do keywording without network drives connected. The low resolution
> thumbnails would be sufficient for me. However, this is not part of the
> Digikam concept, is it? 
> Face recognition has improved significantly since it was first introduced.
> This is a great evolution of the tool. Thanks. I set it to search for faces
> in new images. If I understand it correctly, jpg and raw files are
> considered separately. I would like to see an option to group newly added
> images directly by name and then run the face recognition on only one of
> the images to save some time. I think this is currently only possible if
> you search for faces directly on a group.  
> When assigning names to the images or ignoring faces, I noticed that this
> also took several seconds (->network drive). I would have expected that
> with a lazy synchronisation of the metadata, there would be no need to
> retrieve the data from the network drive along with the generated
> thumbnails, and that the write process could be done later, so that there
> would be no delays here. I also didn't check any boxes, so I assumed that
> no metadata would be written back at all.
(...)

Are you writing keywords etc. to the images and/or sidecar files? Those two 
both require access to the network storage, so will be slow. It also implies 
that you cannot work without the network drives in that case (not without 
risking inconsistencies between image/sidecar data and the database...).

As face names are basically keywords, same reasoning holds.

Remco