>This is measuring the raw performance of the scanner, without any disk >read overhead, and is pretty encouraging.
Encouraging, yes. How much of that is due to the scanner being an exe, and how much is due to Sqlite though. I'm thinking that it's mainly the compiled scanner processing that is the difference, not the DB engine? I'm not really all that bothered with scanner performance, as I would hope to not need to do full scans all that often, if new/changed files scans were to work better. And if I do full rescans, I tend to do them when I'm out or sleeping anyway. I'm interested in seeing some performance stats between SQL queries, i.e. for browsing and searching the music library. _______________________________________________ beta mailing list beta@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
