Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Amarok 2.0 releasedAmarok 2.0 releasedPosted Dec 11, 2008 21:41 UTC (Thu) by oever (subscriber, #987)In reply to: Amarok 2.0 released by kragil Parent article: Amarok 2.0 released
Are you talking about a database of 1 TB to go with your music? That's quite a bit. The music is not stored in the database. Metadata is. At what size does the sqlite database break down? If it does, it may be due to mixing data and search columns in one large table. For efficient querying, it's better to split up tables in some cases.
(Log in to post comments)
Amarok 2.0 released Posted Dec 12, 2008 17:06 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]
I thought SQLite was the best DB when writing little and reading often, so what's the advantage of MySQL here? Only at DB creation might it be better, and even then, you're usually _only_ writing, and I suppose with only one process (I suspect disk access will be the blocking point, not CPU, so no point in MT), so it should be ust as quick...
Anybody with a link to the rationale behind the switch?
Amarok 2.0 released Posted Dec 12, 2008 19:16 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yeah, running a large extra daemon solely for the sake of one music player
just isn't going to fly for me at least, nice though Amarok is.
|
|||||||||||||