[dev] ansel performance (was "category performance")

[Ben Chavet]

I think it would be most beneficial to store each image as a category.  At least
as far as performance is concerned.  That way we only fetch the data we need at
any given time.  Since we have the pager function, if a gallery has a lot of
images, we really only want to load the images we are going to see.  It would
also make it easier to move images to a different gallery if so desired.

I'll start working on this next week after finals.

--Ben

Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:

> Quoting Ben Chavet <ben at chavet.net>:
>
> > I am willing to do most of the work, but I'd like to get some feedback so I
> > can lay out my plan of attack before I start.  Let me know what you think.
>
> That sounds like a pretty good analysis to me.
>
> I'd ask, though, is it really beneficial to have a category for every image?
> For
> the numbers you mentioned, that's 2200 categories.
>
> What about, instead, having one category entry for the gallery details, and
> then
> one category entry for *all* of the images in that category?
>
> You'd still be fetching more data than necessary when viewing an individual
> image, but you'd also have potentially more efficient fetching when viewing a
> whole gallery.
>
> Though, if you did it individually, it'd make the overhead of storing
> additional
> attributes per image less, and we do batch-fetch multiple categories anyway.
>
> -chuck
>
> --
> Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck at horde.org>
> "I'm really... I'm not too fascinated by green food." - Average Joe
>
> --
> Horde developers mailing list
> Frequently Asked Questions: http://horde.org/faq/
> To unsubscribe, mail: dev-unsubscribe at lists.horde.org
>


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.