Topic: Will MC's Database issues be resolved?? (Read 4681 times)

LisaRCT · « **on:** January 14, 2004, 09:28:21 am »

Quote from: JimH on January 13, 2004, 01:49:23 pm

It looks like the problem is related to the size of the database.

The storage of lyrics and other metadata inside the database can really affect the size (in MB).

*This statement has been made previously when dealing with MC slow-downs.
*It has become clear that storing data such as Lyrics & Bio's has a marked affect on MC's performance due to the resulting massive database size.
*It has been noted that this does cause MC to be rather crippled in it's performance.
*It has been suggested that large data fields such as Lyrics, and large PLUS repetitive fields such as Artist Bio's be stored OUTSIDE the database (as cover art has been) as a possible solution.

However, I have not seen any form of acknowledgement, direct comment, or response from the JRiver people as to whether this is to be considered as a possible way to resolve this issue.

In the meantime, I (and possible others) have found the use of Lyrics & Bio's to be too detrimental to MC's performance to take advantage of this 'feature'.

Will this be resolved?
Or will having Lyrics and/or bio's continue to be a compromise?

Matt · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2004, 09:44:53 am »

It's a problem we're going to solve.

LisaRCT · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2004, 09:47:09 am »

Thank you Matt . . . .

I will sleep easier knowing that

. . . and I am looking forward to re-importing all my lyrics & bio's

Quisp · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2004, 01:18:15 pm »

Great!

cfgreen · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2004, 06:04:33 pm »

Super!
Consider
Storing Artist Bios as as text file in the artist Dir with a way to have the DB "read" one file.

Same thing on Album Info
THanx

roognation · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2004, 03:28:26 am »

Newbie here...

I have over 1500 CDs ripped and this database slow down has nearly driven me away from MC. If I were to step back in time, can someone tell me which build of Media Center (or should I go back to Media Jukebox) to get the best database performance?

When shall I expect the new DB implementations?

Thx a bunch!

PS Just love the smartlists!

Lynn · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:37:02 pm »

Woo Hoo!!!!!

pbreet · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2004, 09:22:14 pm »

Quote from: Matt on January 14, 2004, 09:44:53 am

It's a problem we're going to solve.

I LOVE clear cut black and white answers, it makes all of us way more patient with problems when we know they will be addressed. Thanks.

Drowbe · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2004, 12:06:19 am »

Quote from: Matt on January 14, 2004, 09:44:53 am

It's a problem we're going to solve.

Matt...thanks for responding to this with an absolute answer. My collection is getting big (23k+ files) and I was starting to wonder if MC was going to continue to work for me...sounds like I just need to hang in there for a while.

LisaRCT · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:57:03 am »

Quote from: Drowbe on January 20, 2004, 12:06:19 am

...sounds like I just need to hang in there for a while.

still hangin'

lurker · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2004, 10:09:42 am »

... still hangin' ?

In the meantime can we just use some external relational database software .. even Excel or Access. Many database packages these days, not dedicated to music, seems to handle million of records in blink time. Could we just use one of these for the quick database part, and use MC to play the files we select externally. Should we use MC or just our own separate window for biog and cover art?

JimH · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2004, 10:57:14 am »

Quote from: lurker on January 20, 2004, 10:09:42 am

... still hangin' ?

In the meantime can we just use some external relational database software .. even Excel or Access.

No.

Drowbe · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2004, 02:13:36 pm »

Quote from: JimH on January 20, 2004, 10:57:14 am

Quote from: lurker on January 20, 2004, 10:09:42 am
... still hangin' ?

In the meantime can we just use some external relational database software .. even Excel or Access.
No.

Actually, Yes, he could use whatever software he chooses to deal with the DB part of his files. You can send playlists and songs to MC from a ton of application. I've tried several music DBs-- that is one of the things that lead me to MC. Most of the DB software *included* a player, but it was usually very weak. MC, on the other hand, was a a good balance between player and database. Plus, it offered so many more features, there wasn't much of a decision and I registered it.

Although MC worked great at first, it began slowing down as my collection grew. Pulling cover art out of MC and embedding them into the files helped, but it didn't fix it. What the user needs to ask is if they really want to put a bunch of time into a stop-gap DB solution. Personally, I've already invested a ton of time in MC...and based on what Matt mentioned above, for me it is best to wait it out.

To just say "No" wasn't really the truth. It may not be in their best interest if they were to really think about it, but it is, indeed, possible to use an external DB.

LisaRCT · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2004, 06:11:39 pm »

Correct, it makes little sense to buy software only to circumvent much of it's functionality. And I too have invested too much time and money in MC not to wait until it functions properly.

tlongacre · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2004, 12:02:16 am »

So, leading on from this thread. . .

I've got just under 1600 "albums" in MC. Performance is not too bad, except when it wants to "Save Database", but I'm okay with that at the moment.

I have almost complete cover art for the albums and tons of lyrics and bios (thanks to KingSparta. . .)

Here's my question -- I don't use MC for my photos. Given the performance hit I'm taking just with music, I shudder to think what would happen if I used it to view and manage the couple thousand photos I've got on my computer.

Am I wrong in thinking this would just exacerbate the problem? Or are these two things (photos and music) managed differently and it wouldn't just drag MC totally in to the toilet for me?

*whine on -- I just gotta say that I kind of don't understand why people who create tools for managing media (like MC) would create it in such a way that it doesn't work well for those with large collections. I mean, aren't we their target audience? This isn't just aimed at JRiver and I know they are working on it. But I have a friend who works for a company that makes a server box -- it's the perfect thing for hosting/backing your music and photos. And they think their market is small business and home users. But the largest box they have is 120gb. And all I can think is, huh? That would only back up one of the my 3 HDDs. Harrumph. . . whine off*

Matt · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:36:15 am »

MC runs well with 100,000+ files on a modern machine.

Adding huge amounts of lyrics and bios slow things down. As stated earlier, that will be fixed.

tlongacre · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:07:16 am »

Matt,

So you're saying that adding tons of photos won't slow it down? Okay, I'll go for it.

This was probably explained somewhere before, but what is it about lyrics and bios that slow things down that just adding more files does not? Obviously it is not just the size of the database?

Thanks.

JimH · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:08:12 am »

It's the number of MB, not the number of files.

tlongacre · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:16:35 am »

Quote from: JimH on January 21, 2004, 09:08:12 am

It's the number of MB, not the number of files.

Hmm, and is there something about bios and lyrics that increase the number of MBs more than photos or music? Oh, is it because the database only holds descriptive info on photos and music and actually contains all the text of the bios and lyrics? Now I think I am getting it.

Doof · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2004, 10:28:27 am »

Exactly. The database doesn't actually contain the songs, videos, or images. It only contains information ABOUT the songs, videos, or images.

tlongacre · « **Reply #20 on:** January 21, 2004, 12:33:14 pm »

Ah, it's all making sense to me now. . .

JimH · « **Reply #21 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:33:28 pm »

That seems like too big a set of data if you're not storing anything extra.

Try this. Create a new library in MC. File/Library/Library Manager. Set it to store data somewhere in a temp folder for now.

Switch to it. It should be empty.

Then import from your media directories.

Drowbe · « **Reply #22 on:** January 21, 2004, 04:27:50 pm »

does MC store the ratings in the mp3 or in the DB? I'd really hate to lose all of the rating work I've done...

shAf · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2004, 06:37:05 am »

Quote from: Matt on January 14, 2004, 09:44:53 am

It's a problem we're going to solve.

Is this a MC9 thread, or MC10? (... noting we are in the MC9 forum ...)

tlongacre · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2004, 10:39:30 am »

Um, well, there isn't an MC10 forum. And this issue actually exists in both versions.

Drowbe · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:22:25 pm »

It applies to the MC10 Beta. I think they've mentioned in another thread that the only things that will get fixed in 9.x are catastrophic bugs.

JimH · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:24:45 pm »

And this one is not a bug. It's arguably a design compromise, but it isn't a bug. The only time it's a problem is when there is a large database with a lot of extra metadata like lyrics or bio's.

drosoph · « **Reply #27 on:** January 23, 2004, 07:52:23 am »

Something is wrong with build 10.0.43 !! My database of 40-some-thousand songs isnt having ANY PROBLEMS !!!! .. It cross-fades and has no delay between songs or in skipping to new sections .. what happened ?

Seriously, was this intentional, or am I just too tired or something !!!

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Will MC's Database issues be resolved?? (Read 4681 times)

LisaRCT

LisaRCT

Drowbe

LisaRCT

lurker

Drowbe

LisaRCT

Drowbe

Drowbe