2010/3/30 Chen, Zhenqiang <zhenqiang.c...@intel.com>: > Carlos Garnacho wrote: > >> As Philip said, we should take into account memory usage as well, and >> keeping a hashtable for each known item is not going to be nice... >> TrackerCrawler guarantees that any directory will be processed after >> its parent folder, and all the items in a directory will be processed >> together, so we very probably can do this on a per-folder basis. > > Agree. Combining with Philip and your suggestion, I prefer the logic as: > > (1) get the total count of items with SPARQL's COUNT. > if count > 1000 > do per-folder basis query with OFFSET and LIMIT > else > get all items once. > > For most systems like netbook or handset, there are not much items.
I would very much appreciate such a "batched" mode during initial crawling. When I login, tracker keeps my CPU busy for about 2-3min at 100% during the initial crawling. Around 50% of CPU is taken by tracker-store (my guess because of the dbus messages). The other half is taken by tracker-miner-fs. I'd hope by sending larger chunks in a single dbus message, the CPU usage of tracker-store is also going down. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list