https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375573
--- Comment #2 from Dan Dascalescu <ddascalescu+...@gmail.com> --- Hey Mario, Thank you for the explanation. I understand the tradeoff - accuracy in reporting the number of dupes, vs. speedy processing. The solution I propose revolved around lazy calculation - does the user care more about a precise number shown next to the album *when they get to see it*, or to be able to move on to examine the other duplicates in the cluster? I mentioned "when they get to see it" because after the user deletes one of the duplicates, the list of duplicate clusters in the left pane always scrolls to the top (IMO this could be improved to try to keep the scroll position, but digiKam probably just re-sorts the list), so if they were working on a duplicate cluster below the fold (i.e. if they have scrolled down at all), the number of duplicates in that album won't be visible anyway. In fact, when you deal with many clusters of duplicates, only those items at the top, according to the sort order (Ref. images filename, # of items, or Avg. similarity) will be visible. Not sure what you meant by "one duplicates album" (needs to be adjusted) - did you mean a cluster (in DUFF terminology, http://duff.dreda.org/) of duplicates (which may be spread across different albums), or an album that contains duplicates, so the count of items in the album needs to be adjusted? In the latter case, that count is even farther from the user's attention, because the user is in the Fuzzy tab, vs. in the Albums tab. Could the recalculation of counts be done only once, when the user leaves the Fuzzy tab? Also, there are two different scenarios I see when it comes to deleting duplicates: 1) Deleting images in duplicate clusters one by one, while the user looks at the picture in Preview Mode, to examine it in as large of a size as possible. In this case, only one image is deleted at a time. Would counts be easier to decrement in this case? 2) Staying in Thumbnails or Table, selecting multiple images, and deleting them at once. Finally, question about "the deleted image may be member of other duplicates albums" (this relates to the cluster vs. album distinction) - is the duplicate relationship transitive? I mean, if images A and B are dupes within the similarity range, and B is part of another cluster of duplicates, A should be part of that cluster too, which means only two counts need to be updates: the number of dupes in that cluster, and the number of items in the album the image belongs to. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
