Re: Image load optimizations

Am Donnerstag, 7. November 2019, 01:20:41 CET schrieb Robert Krawitz:
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:15:33 +0100, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote:
> My images are laid out as per-camera trees.  My primary body (7DmkII)
> is on a 3.84TB SSD, while the others (and older ones) are on a 2TB
> spinner.  Most of the really high volume shooting I do is with the
> 7DII, so it mostly works out as you suggest.  If/when I replace my
> backup 7D with another 7DmkII, a 7DmkIII if/when Canon releases it, or
> if Canon ever comes out with a mirrorless that really can match/exceed
> the 7DmkII (including battery life), things might change since I'd be
> more inclined to use two bodies heavily.  But at that point I'll
> likely have to upgrade the 2TB to another SSD (3.84 or 7.68).  Note
> that on my recent vacation I was using a different body that lives on
> the slow drive.

I take this as "a per database setting will be good enough even if it's not 
perfect".

> >> But I think we should take a closer look at the settings dialog and
> >> think about what really belongs in KPA settings vs. database
> >> settings, and consider whether we want to store the database
> >> settings in the database proper.
> > 
> > ACK. I'm so far on improving this because it's a major
> > incompatibility and a PITA for those users who regularly switch
> > between different KPA versions, but we'll need to address this some
> > day.
> 
> Yes, so we most likely want to do any of this all at once so that
> there's only one flag day.

Having a flag day is certainly the way to go.

We could probably mitigate the impact a little by implementing support for 
storing settings in the index.xml now and migrating the actual settings later.

Cheers,
  Johannes