I have found that Darktable's performance depends far less on the overall
number of *images* in the database than on the lexical properties of the
*tags* in the database. I have one database with well over 50,000 images,
with which I notice no performance problems, and another database with
about
Am 21.09.2016 um 20:00 schrieb Pascal Obry:
..
> Strange since some of us have far more than 50k images. It was even
> reported by a user that he had 100k images IIRC.
>
> Maybe he reached an issue with the "old" mipmap cache?
>
> Not sure, but to me dt is fast for everything.
>
I have nearly
Le mercredi 21 septembre 2016 à 17:54 +, Helge Hielscher a écrit :
> Bob Keefer wrote at dpreview that he had to switch to digikam for
> his
> 50,000 images:
> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4047509
Strange since some of us have far more than 50k images. It was even
reported by a
Hello Sascha,
my first post through gmane did not get through, so here is my second
attempt.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:31:01 +0200, Sascha Oleszczuk wrote:
> 1.) do you perform a backup?
> 2.) is there a critical amount of images it can manage? or do you import
> all your images and never perform
