Bug 135667 - Store playlist and undo information in the database (request for comments)
Summary: Store playlist and undo information in the database (request for comments)
Status: RESOLVED NOT A BUG
Alias: None
Product: amarok
Classification: Applications
Component: Playlist (show other bugs)
Version: 2.1.1
Platform: Compiled Sources Linux
: NOR wishlist
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Amarok Developers
URL:
Keywords:
: 137504 146860 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-10-15 04:01 UTC by Ovy
Modified: 2009-08-20 21:10 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments
SQL and comments for the new tables (6.51 KB, text/plain)
2006-10-15 04:01 UTC, Ovy
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ovy 2006-10-15 04:01:01 UTC
Version:            (using KDE Devel)
Installed from:    Compiled sources

As I was saying in my recent post on the list, storing the playlist and undo information in XML is a major source
of slowdowns currently; database storage would allow faster operation, incremental updates, as well as interesting future applications like correlating with the tags db.

The idea met with approval, so I'd like to start working on this. To get some dev support, and to avoid prototyping in completely the wrong direction, I'd like to use this bug to get a discussion started.

The design I have in mind unifies incremental playlist saving, and undo/redo in a single structure that works like a log. These two aspects are both related to the evolution of the playlist over time, so I think this makes sense.

I wrote the SQL for creating the new tables and indices, and fount it most convenient to outline the meaning of the tables,  and the operations they support, inside the SQL as comments. I will attach the file after creating the bug. Feel free to comment on it, propose changes, apply to your db to make sure it works, etc.

I am not sure whether we should use the existing collection.db, or create a new database. The name collection.db suggests that the playlist does not belong there, however it is simpler to have a single db, and it will also allow joins with the tag tables, if it becomes useful in the future. Please advise :)
Comment 1 Ovy 2006-10-15 04:01:51 UTC
Created attachment 18121 [details]
SQL and comments for the new tables
Comment 2 richlv 2006-10-16 09:47:56 UTC
using a separate database would make things more complex for people using mysql/postgresql
Comment 3 Alexandre Oliveira 2006-10-16 23:07:22 UTC
Yeah, another database is out of question, I think. Creating the database is already boring enough on mysql/postgresql.
Comment 4 Mark Kretschmann 2006-11-20 09:34:29 UTC
*** Bug 137504 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Kevin Funk 2007-06-16 14:31:14 UTC
*** Bug 146860 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Myriam Schweingruber 2009-08-03 12:22:48 UTC
Support for multiple collections might come back at some time.
Comment 7 Jeff Mitchell 2009-08-20 21:10:09 UTC
Closing as it's way outdated.
Comment 8 Jeff Mitchell 2009-08-20 21:10:28 UTC
Closing as it's way outdated.