Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gappie]

Hi, this is NOT to start an other relational database discussion. There are enough for those who do a search, they are boring.

what i mean is that some values like [last played (album)] have the value "relational" set to "store one value for each album". There are some other fields that i would think would be logical to get the same setting like [total tracks], [total discs] and [album artist].

 
gab

[EnglishTiger]

I'm not saying this should not be considered or acted on but if the Last Played(album) field is anything to go by then Database Size could become a problem.

At present on my system the LastPlayed file for 393 tracks from 224 albums file is 4kb but the Last Played (album) file is 24kb

[gappie]

I'm not saying this should not be considered or acted on but if the Last Played(album) field is anything to go by then Database Size could become a problem.

At present on my system the LastPlayed file for 393 tracks from 224 albums file is 4kb but the Last Played (album) file is 24kb

i doubt that it will be an item. i have [last played (album)] as a value for 24093 files in 2161 albums, the [last played (album)] in the database is 60kb. there are enough fields much bigger. it is also i think still a flat database, but mc treats the field as a table. so when you play one song of the album, all tracks from the album get the same value in last played (album).

and it would be nice if that would work for total tracks and the like.

 
gab

[markf2748]

re "total tracks":
I defined my own custom field "track total" which is Relational:  Store one value for each album.  It works fine.  I would agree that the built-in should be album relational.

In principle I agree "total disks" and "album artist" should also be album relational.  The issue may be fear of unforeseen side effects / edge use cases for such long standing fields?

[EnglishTiger]

Total Tracks and Album Artist are 1 per track fields/tags that, if present, are inherited from whatever CD Ripper is used to get those Tracks/Album/CD onto disc therefore they cannot be Relational!

[Hendrik]

Changing existing fields to be relational has potential of causing a bunch of issues, so thats not likely to be something we do lightly.

[gappie]

Changing existing fields to be relational has potential of causing a bunch of issues, so thats not likely to be something we do lightly.

okiedokie.
maybe ill try version 35 again. no problem.

 
gab