POLL: How Many Images Are You Cataloging in Photo Supreme?

[danieljcox]

Hoping to hear from folks cataloging large number of images within Photo Supreme. Is anyone imported 400,000 photo or more?

[Hert]

I've changed this into a poll...

[lippe]

I use multiple catalogs and keep the size rather limited for performance reasons. My current hardware seems with the 10000 to 20000 range in balance.

[danieljcox]

I use multiple catalogs and keep the size rather limited for performance reasons. My current hardware seems with the 10000 to 20000 range in balance.

Lippe, can you search across those individual catalogs? I'm hoping numerous catalogs are not necessary since the power of a computer is supposed to be the ability to handle massive amounts of data. That's the beauty of an all in one database mangement tool. I'm planning to Import my entire digital image database of 500,000 images and I'm truly hopeful Photo Supere will handle it. Will let you know. So far I'm loving what I see with a test catalog of 15,000 images.

[DirkS]

can you search across those individual catalogs?

No, you can only search within 1 catalog / database.

Gr.
Dirk.

[Preston B]

I have a single catalog with about 3700 images. Most of these are various versions (web and print files) derived from 4x5 scanned film, with a smattering of digital camera images.

It looks like I'm the low man on the totem pole, so far.

--P

[andy@damroundup.com]

I'm hovering right around 70,000 images at the moment... cruising along just fine.

[HaraldE]

Have around 84 k images and all is fine. No versions but a lot of Collections in a few Portfolios

Regards, Harald

[space]

Have 112,000+ images in my digital archive.

Sometime back had some significant issues with my thumbnail database. This had "swollen" up to 25 GB. While trying to run the compacting routine continually got these database error messages. Trashed the thumbs DB and did a rebuild. Its now at a respectable 13 GB. Suspect there may have been some "corrupted" images in there amongst some other "rubbish". Anyway things seem to be running sweet on my system. Now running PS off a WIN 8.1 laptop - i7 + 8 GB RAM and regular HDD.

[HCS]

Did vote in the poll, but never posted. I'm currently hovering around 65K raw images with quite a bunch of original jpegs and a stash of derivatives, together probably around 15-20K.

Running the postgres version on a MacPro with 48Gb and SSD for database and RAID0 for images. And that, obviously, runs fine

[rab108]

I am new to PS and am interested in cataloging over 400k (eventually) images.

[HCS]

I am new to PS and am interested in cataloging over 400k (eventually) images.

I don't see why that should be a problem, provided you use the server version (i'm not sure how far the standalone (=sqlite) version would take you) and given the right server sizing.

However, write an email to the support address and ask, i'm pretty sure they will give you guidance.

[lmogens]

There are other cataloging systems out there using SQLite, such as Lightroom 5 and Capture One Pro 8.

Some users of Lightroom are happily running +500k catalogs, while Capture One users much sooner start to suffer performancewise.

This would suggest that there are other more important factors than the DBMS, such as the entire implementation of the cataloging software, and the individual database design. Looking at some simple figures is quite telling :

Capture One 8: 20 tables, 19 indexes
Lightroom 5: 96 tables, 221 indexes
Photo Supreme 2: 47 tables, 158 indexes

Also, considering that relational database management systems is a well-established, mature technology there is no reason to expect any noticable performance degradation with size from the DBMS itself, in this case SQLite. There may be hard proof to the contrary out there though.

[HCS]

There are other cataloging systems out there using SQLite, such as Lightroom 5 and Capture One Pro 8.

Some users of Lightroom are happily running +500k catalogs, while Capture One users much sooner start to suffer performancewise.

This would suggest that there are other more important factors than the DBMS, such as the entire implementation of the cataloging software, and the individual database design. Looking at some simple figures is quite telling :

Capture One 8: 20 tables, 19 indexes
Lightroom 5: 96 tables, 221 indexes
Photo Supreme 2: 47 tables, 158 indexes

Also, considering that relational database management systems is a well-established, mature technology there is no reason to expect any noticable performance degradation with size from the DBMS itself, in this case SQLite. There may be hard proof to the contrary out there though.

I understand your reply is not a direct response to mine above, but to a certain extend you address topics i address as well.

What i'm saying (or rather: am trying to say) is that there may be nothing wrong with SQLite as such, having a proper enterprise scale database for you catalog will guarantee that it will not cringe under larger loads. 400K+ records is becoming big for SQLite (the internet can be searched for literature on that) but it means absolutely nothing to a DB like Postgresql, which is intended for millions+ records.

So, i think that Adobe got the tuning of their LR database down to a good level and Phase One apparently haven't for the CO8 database. This doesn't mean that the larger database wouldn't do better with ever growing load. I do know that with my DB size the standalone version of PSU on a not too shabby system was sometimes giving me strange latency behaviour. I chose the "easy" way out.

[NassauBoy]

Voted in the 50K - 100K and currently at 80K.
So far Im happy with performance (Just wish the browsing view was faster)
Cataloging is quick, easy and love I can write back the labels to the raw file.