idimager.thumbs.db - 40 GB size?

[Hert]

No Frank, what I'm saying is that if you want the volumes of images that you apparently want to manage then use the equipment that matches your needs. Using a 40GB database on a 128GB drive makes perfect sense to me. Of course you should then not install other software that also claims 40GB for its database. But you don't even know yet if your database will be 10 or 40 or 100GB. Maybe find that out first...maybe you're trying to find a solution for something not there.

If space is a constraint for you then, as you yourself also suggested, use another drive than your SSD.

@toomas, when using a smaller size then the database can't grow less data still means less space. Are you sure the database is compacted?

Hert

[Frankyls]

In the meantime I tested a migration of my IDI5 DB on desktop (a copy of course). It was pretty fast, about one and a half hour. The size of the file idimager.thumbs.db is not affected by the migration, it remained the same. I'll how it works.
Thanks for all the help ! That is great

[fbungarz]

Are you saying you did not have PSU rebuild the thumbnail database (as is recommended) but instead told it to use the old IDI database?

You should not migrate your IDimager thumbs database to PSU; It's better to let PSU create a new one...

Why?
Apparently it means that PSU can read the smaller, old thumbs database from IDI without problems even though there is no setting available in PSU to build thumbs at the original IDI size?
So, it may seam: if you want a small thumbs database you are much better off to continue using the old IDI database...!? Or are there other resons why you would not want to do that?

Also:
I guess that means PSU will still build much larger thumbs for all new images? And with that it will likely soon mushroom into a much larger thumbs database?

We can talk about it but that won't make it any smaller.

Hert - I am really not trying to be difficult here. I am just trying to find a workable solution. Like I said, I have 40GB left on my SDD and there is no way that (even using PSU smallest thumb setting) I can risk filling that up with a 20GB thumbnail database! It is simply not good practice to fill an SDD up to the brim. Yes, newer SDDs are less prone to failure, but even they will not last long if all write cycles are confined to a very small part of the disk because everything else is full.

Frank

[Hert]

Indeed, as frank mentions, you shouldn't use an IDimager thumbs database. IDimager doesn't store all the previews needed for PSU. Also PSU *requires* previews in the database, while in IDimager you have the option to not store previews at all. And when no previews are in the thumbs database then you're bound to run into unpredictable results for some features.

Please delete the IDimager thumbs database and build a new one,

Hert

[george]

Yes, newer SDDs are less prone to failure, but even they will not last long if all write cycles are confined to a very small part of the disk because everything else is full.

Hi Frank. That's not my understanding of how solid state drives (SSD) work. Except for the very oldes ones, they have a scheme of static or dynamic wear leveling to insure that write/erase cycles are distributed evenly across the drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

As far as I know, the effectiveness of these algorithms are not very sensitive to how full the drive is. If anyone knows differently, please feel free to jump in.

[tomas]

@toomas, when using a smaller size then the database can't grow less data still means less space. Are you sure the database is compacted?

Under the "tools" menu there is an item to "Compact the Database". That is what I used.

I just now discovered the separate item under "Tools" "Preferences", "Catalog" to "Compact" the Thumbnails Database.
I ran that. Took a long time. No change in the size of the thumbs.db.
(Now running on V2)

tomas