From: Alex Parker <parker.alex.e_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 00:25:09 +0100

On 5 Jan 2011 00:22, "sideral" <asieoniezi_at_gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Alex Parker <parker.alex.e_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > On 4 Jan 2011 23:52, "sideral" <asieoniezi_at_gmx.net> wrote:
> >> > This way only the tracks with resume info would end up in my
> >> > database, saving me the couple of MB of RAM that the entire
> >> > database (with my lots of files!) would otherwise take needlessly
> >> > (as I don't use the database).
> >>
> >> This may be a misunderstanding. The autoresume feature does not
> >> depend on the DB being held in RAM (tagcache_ram option).
> >
> > No, but as I understand it auto update does, so if you want resume to
> > work on newly added files you will need either to rebuild the database
> > each time or have auto update turned on. I could of course be
> > misremembering this.
>
> I believe you're correct.
>
> I do not know whether Slasheri's statement encompasses the possibility
> to extend the online DB with new tracks without enabling
> tagcache_autoupdate and tagcache_ram, but I'd hope so. Anyway, I'd very
> much like to help improving the database in this area once we're
> finished with this discussion.
>
> sideral
>

Heh, I'm not sure I am! Anyway, I wouldn't care if load to ram was needed if
only the odd file was in there instead of all of them.

Alex
Received on 2011-01-05