Curious...vido wrote:Yes we should get the option of turning off indexing when adding a folder.
The new browser is GREAT apart from that.
Why should the library view be fed by the indexing?drez wrote:Curious...vido wrote:Yes we should get the option of turning off indexing when adding a folder.
The new browser is GREAT apart from that.
What would this accomplish? Since Ableton is ONLY using the data in the database to navigate through the browser (unless I'm wrong about that), what would shutting off indexing do? The indexing process is what FEEDS the data into the database so that you can browse? Or is that not how the browser works?
Good points, but I think Ableton plans on more filter/find/replace options for the data in the database then simply finding a file name on the file system. What if they implement a tagging system where you can assign a tag to a set of samples to whatever name you'd like no matter where they live on your drives? What about being able to query for specific elements of samples that you've tagged them as? Lots of possibilities. You couldn't do this without a system that supported metadata associated to the sample itself, which in Abletons case, is a database.marcoskohler wrote:
Why should the library view be fed by the indexing?
IMO the primary function of adding folders to the browser should just be to access those folders inside Live...Indexing takes time and is causing so many headaches...If I add a folder to my Places, just reference that folder location and let me navigate it as though I were in Finder/Explorer. Can't they just treat the folders like the OS does? If I create a million folders and transfer huge amounts of samples in OSX, the Operating System and Spotlight has no problems with this and lets me access the contents RIGHT AWAY! Furthermore, if I then immediately search those folders, it gives me those results RIGHT AWAY as well. No matter how many folders or amount of data this is the EXPECTED behavior we are all used to when interacting with the OS.
In contrast, if I add multiple folders to my "Places" in Live 9, it won't even allow me to access those folders right away...I have to wait for it to index them...even after it's indexed, if I go to search for a common keyword such as "snare" it takes so long to finish the search (long relative to what we expect in 2013)...even after it lists all the places it found reference to "snare", expanding and collpasing the folders under my main Sample HD is sluggish and slow. Why? What is Live 9 doing that's so special? I have a 2012 iMac with 16 gigs of RAM and I spend more time waiting on Live 9 than any other of my programs.
TLDR:
1) I can use Spotlight in OSX and search my entire HD + 3 externals with IMMEDIATE results. In ableton searching only the folders I imported takes 10 times as long and it's only searching through a fraction of my entire HD space.
2) I can drag 200 gigs worth of data from an external HD to my iMac and access those files RIGHT AWAY. In ableton I can't until it's done indexing (not like indexing solves the sluggish response)
3) You're doing it wrong.
the Spotlight system on OS X is a full metadata and content database system, it's not just filenames.drez wrote: I think this is more about what Ableton will be able to provide in the future because the data is IN a database then simply looking for the name of a sample and finding it othe drive.
That doesn't help the windows user.fishmonkey wrote:the Spotlight system on OS X is a full metadata and content database system, it's not just filenames.drez wrote: I think this is more about what Ableton will be able to provide in the future because the data is IN a database then simply looking for the name of a sample and finding it othe drive.
it is stupid that you can't access your content in the Live 9 browser until the indexing is done; any way you slice it that's bad design and implementation.
His point isn't that Spotlight solves the problem, his point is that the OS (OSX AND Windows) already does metadata + instant search, etc...and it does it flawlessly...how come a program with a much smaller db takes so much longer.drez wrote:That doesn't help the windows user.fishmonkey wrote:the Spotlight system on OS X is a full metadata and content database system, it's not just filenames.drez wrote: I think this is more about what Ableton will be able to provide in the future because the data is IN a database then simply looking for the name of a sample and finding it othe drive.
it is stupid that you can't access your content in the Live 9 browser until the indexing is done; any way you slice it that's bad design and implementation.
Fair enough.marcoskohler wrote: His point isn't that Spotlight solves the problem, his point is that the OS (OSX AND Windows) already does metadata + instant search, etc...and it does it flawlessly...how come a program with a much smaller db takes so much longer.
Yeah, they really laid an egg with the release, no doubt. Very unfortunate considering they've had so much time in between releases.marcoskohler wrote:True, if it were fast this thread wouldn't exist. The problem is that it's slow and there are no currently implemented features that REALLY make use of indexing. So we are crawling through our library and creative workflow for no reason
I think there would still be people complaining that they would not be able to instantly access any file they want, i.e. if you want to get to a random file it has to be in a known location an indexed. No matter how fast the indexing is it still doesnt solve that problemdrez wrote:Fair enough.marcoskohler wrote: His point isn't that Spotlight solves the problem, his point is that the OS (OSX AND Windows) already does metadata + instant search, etc...and it does it flawlessly...how come a program with a much smaller db takes so much longer.
I guess the issue is speed, then? IMO, nobody would be complaining if it was fast. This thread would t exist because people wouldn't question the underlying architecture because it worked quickly. If they "fixed it" so that it was fast at indexing, would it matter what technology they used?
For disclosure purposes:drez wrote:Has anyone that has had issues with the browser tried 9.03 b5 to see if it has made a difference in indexing? I know lots of people in this thread have talked about how slow it is and was wondering if this version made a difference or not?
