INTERACT FORUM

More => Old Versions => JRiver Media Center 19 for Windows => Topic started by: nitephlight on November 22, 2013, 05:03:31 am

Title: Selectively updating / merging Library versions
Post by: nitephlight on November 22, 2013, 05:03:31 am
same issue here, number of plays is always suspiciously low but didn't pay heed till i had had to start re rating items i could have sworn were done (file I've had for years).

i take very regular backups, short of restoring, How would i selectively update the current library where the backup copy has > plays or tags?

so i have a very healthy collection of backups from which i need to selectively update my current database that was born out of a failed hardrive, a general lack of knowledge about how sidecars and tagging works (better believe im all over that after a couple of years of MC lol). that being said, the true representation of my statistics lies across a number of library backups- im fairly certain the Sync library will cause some unintentional overwriting of newer but *incomplete tag data.. my thought is load the backup in a separate environment, force the creation of a historical sidecar by assigning every media file a temporary Keyword, then do a scripted merge of xml files, selectively adding or combining values for fields like rating, keyword, number of plays / skips (though i now read that these may not be changeable currently). once the xml is up to date, i can then update the new library FROM sidecar... or if there is totally a built in feature that would handle something like this, i'd love to hear about it =)



thanks a ton
Title: Re: Selectively updating / merging Library versions
Post by: MrC on November 22, 2013, 11:07:50 am
Maybe this helps:

   http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=78899.msg542397#msg542397 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=78899.msg542397#msg542397)
Title: Re:
Post by: nitephlight on November 22, 2013, 09:17:23 pm
rofl, you WOULD be to the rescue ;-) your the man, thanks a billion will try this out with a couple of dummy dbs first, definately more elegant than my solution.

thanks again, will report back