Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Rhythmbox Breakdown #1

[Artem Baguinski <femistofel gmail com>]

On 05/11/05, James Livingston <jrl ids org au> wrote:
> >
> > If I want player to play the whole library in a random order - I don't
> > care to have all 10K tracks in a list - I will not trry to scroll it
> > and find something - I'll minimise RB and go on with daily routine.
> >
> > Even if iTunes does it (does it?), huge lists are useless.
>
> If we accept that we don't want huge lists, what can we do about it?
> Getting rid of the entry view completely wouldn't work, because then you
> couldn't select tracks. Do you have any suggestions of how we could keep
> it, but not have huge lists?

Well, I have some ideas, but maybe I have to sit on them for some time
first and then start a separate thread :-)

> Also, how do you define huge - 100? 500?
> 1000?

Of course I don't define "huge" as an exact number :-)

> I do actually scroll through a several-thousand long list occasionally.
> It's when I feel like listening to a certain kind of song, but I don't
> know which one, so I scroll though until something jumps out at me.

right... you just use what you've got, I mean - you do it because you
HAVE huge list. I could imagine something along the lines of ...

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/index.cfm

... one of those more inspiring and all :-) (just got that link from my boss)

> Also the time taken to calculate column sizes doesn't only affect the
> entire library. Use a browser, use the search box, sort an auto
> playlist; some of time taken is obviously the database, but there is
> still a moderately large amount of time spent sizing the columns. This
> means that the patch still provides a noticable speedup, even if we
> somehow got removed huge lists.

right! If it give noticable gain on moderate size lists - I have
nothing against! i love software to deliver results before I actually
need it lol