On 11/17/2010 08:54 PM, Ralf Engels wrote:
> I agree that 16 minutes just for committing the data is too much.
> My earlier tests with the scan result processor showed a time increase
> of 200% to 300%.
> Now this sounds bad, but my test also showed that only 5% of the time
> was used in the databa
On Mi, 2010-11-17 at 17:38 -0500, Leo Franchi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> > On 11/13/2010 03:07 PM, Leo Franchi wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Below are my observations too, just to see if other users' compare.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Mikko C.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:07 PM, Leo Franchi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Below are my observations too, just to see if other users' compare.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Mikko C. wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I found some time to run some tests with the ne
On 11/13/2010 03:07 PM, Leo Franchi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Below are my observations too, just to see if other users' compare.
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Mikko C. wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I found some time to run some tests with the new scanner.
>>
>> Amarok from git master of today:
>> Full resc
Hello,
Below are my observations too, just to see if other users' compare.
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Mikko C. wrote:
> Hi,
> I found some time to run some tests with the new scanner.
>
> Amarok from git master of today:
> Full rescan with the collection already being present on the extern
Hi,
I found some time to run some tests with the new scanner.
Amarok from git master of today:
Full rescan with the collection already being present on the external
MySQL database.
- 11:30 mins for the first scanning part (up to 50% in the progress bar)
- 2:50 mins for the last part (remaining 5
