Photo Supreme

Your desktop is likely not the issue.

I'd look at the server, and the network from server to your PC. There may be some authentication that is creating overhead.

Like Hert, I import images quickly, even though my server is an old underpowered AMD server from 2010.

I use PostGreSQL and find it to ...

I run Photo Supreme on a server (PostGreSQL) and I have seen certain operations crash, but not the actual app.
I also have seen "Not Responding" lockups that resolve after some time (seconds or minutes).

What I do know is that my server is woefully underpowered. I expect to have that handled by end ...

This has nothing to do with Windows/System Admin accounts!

Once more, all my users are (Photo Supreme/PostgreSQL) Administrators.
In addition, the built-in Admin account is a (Photo Supreme/PostgreSQL) (Photo Supreme/PostgreSQL) Administrators.

On the last update, I was unable to complete the ...

The requirement for an admin user to upgrade the database is in place for a few years already (was it v7?). This prevents random users to install an update and upgrade the database which can affect all users connecting to the same database. The admin can coordinate when the upgrade takes place ...

Followup: I was able to login via the admin account, and initiate the database upgrade.

Still wondering if this will be normal behavior for 2024 going forward.

I am compacting the db/thumbs and it has taken 20 minutes so far (way longer than usual).

(Finally finished after 35 minutes.)

I just updated 4 Windows 10 clients with latest update for Photo Supreme PostGreSQL version.

When I try to login, I get an information window that the database needs upgrading and since I am not logged in as the administrator, I cannot perform the database upgrade and login.

Is this requirement to ...

1. Probably not, as it would require http access to the photo files. If it was possible, it would be orders of magnitude slower than the slowest disk you can find.
2. No, Google Drive won't let you run SQL, which is required for the database access.

Thanks for the confirmation!

I am running Photo Supreme Postgresql server edition on a Windows server.

Postgresql version is 12. I would like to install 15.

Are there any issues with updating and retaining proper operation of Photo Supreme?

OK, getting odder all the time. In my label (category) details, a fair subset have Metadata:Apply Detail Profile checked. In those detail profiles are weird entries including specific addresses of places I've never known.

I'm unchecking all Apply Detail Profile settings that I find.

Searching for 'bakersfield' works (I'm still on v7). PS goes into a non-responsive state for ~3 minutes, returns with 679 images. The data is in an IPTC extension Location Created. I am clearing that field.

The odd thing is if I search one of the other rogue labels (Sedro-Woolley) it returns 0 ...

I've been using Photo Supreme since the Idimager days (pre-PS). Currently still on v7 Server edition.

I have a few labels that seem to end up in my Categories even though I delete them. Sometimes they end up applied to photos without any effort on my part.

All photos are either TIFF or JPEG. I ...

Mke wrote: 12 Dec 22 16:34 As well as on import, PSU used to stack files when 'verifying folder / scanning for missing files.

I use Verifying constantly to get version detection happening. I'll try this, thanks.

There is no way that I can think of that PSU will automatically create stacks on import unless you switch that option on.
So we're probably overlooking something here.

Use this as your stacking rule. That will prevent you from getting stacks as this rule *never* leads to a match ...

No, apply stacking is UNCHECKED.

I'm up to 147 images stacked. Yet I've never chosen that.

Is there a way to REMOVE the stacking attribute from images that seem to be 'tagged' that way?

(Figured it out - Stacking > Unstack selected files.)