Am Dienstag, 1. August 2017, 23:45:54 CEST schrieb August Schwerdfeger: > I managed to reproduce the problem on a smaller scale using a generated set > of 5,000 1x1 PNG images, each annotated with a certain number of tags, with > a total of 6,111 across the set. (I will send you these images in a > separate message.)
Thanks for that, I was able to reproduce some glacial speeds with that. > When I imported the first 250 of these images into a fresh database in > Darktable 2.2.4, attaching one new tag to the lot took about two seconds. > When I imported all 5,000 into another fresh database, attaching the same > tag to the same 250 images took about 10 seconds. > > I also carried out this same test in Darktable 2.0.7. Importing the 5,000 > images gave me a database file of about 500 megabytes (as opposed to four > with Darktable 2.2.4), and the same tag-attachment operation took four and > a half minutes. When, however, I repeated the operation with the name of a > nonexistent tag in the tagging module text box, it took 10 seconds as in > Darktable 2.2.4. What I tried was attaching one new tag to the whole lot. It wasn't fun. I will investigate, but from a first peek it seems that we are spending a lot of time in sqlite3. So maybe some SQL queries need to be revised, stuff might have to go into a transaction or not be done at all. I will see. > In light of this result, I should mention that the databases I am having > this trouble with were all originally created by Darktable 1.4.2 and are > over 75 megabytes in size. As it's also slow with a fresh new database we can probably ignore that part. > -- > August Schwerdfeger > aug...@schwerdfeger.name Tobias [...]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
