XnView Software

I have had slow startups for a long time. I always have upgraded soon after each release.

I have used xnview for a while and went through several upgrades.

The problem had gotten worse and worse gradually over time.

I had assumed my 200MB cache file was behind it.

I installed 1 91 5. The slow startup problem did not change.

I discovered the post at

http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?t=13642

From it, I first tried deleting category.db, without changing any of the other settings. The file was 132 KB. I wasn't using the feature so deleting it didn't cause me any problems.

That got me an almost instantaneous startup.

I doubt I am the only person in the world who had a bad category.db file and didn't know about it and how it affected start up time so much.


FWIW -- I never got the category feature to work right and had forgotten about it. I had no idea the file had grown to 132 KB.

For non directory category functionality, to avoid having to drill down through everything in my very large directory hierarchy, I use myalbum with separate albums for first level categories and the myalbum tabs for subcategories. I view thumbnails in myalbum, do control-enter on the thumbnail in myalbum to open the photo in Xnview, and then browse and view with Xnview. The two programs complement each other.

I like the tabs you can check in that for subsets and the all tab that shows all thumbnails in the album.

J Smith wrote:I have had slow startups for a long time. I always have upgraded soon after each release.
I have used xnview for a while and went through several upgrades.
The problem had gotten worse and worse gradually over time.
I had assumed my 200MB cache file was behind it.
I installed 1 91 5. The slow startup problem did not change.
I discovered the post at
http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?t=13642
From it, I first tried deleting category.db, without changing any of the other settings. The file was 132 KB. I wasn't using the feature so deleting it didn't cause me any problems.
That got me an almost instantaneous startup.
I doubt I am the only person in the world who had a bad category.db file and didn't know about it and how it affected start up time so much.
FWIW -- I never got the category feature to work right and had forgotten about it. I had no idea the file had grown to 132 KB.
For non directory category functionality, to avoid having to drill down through everything in my very large directory hierarchy, I use myalbum with separate albums for first level categories and the myalbum tabs for subcategories. I view thumbnails in myalbum, do control-enter on the thumbnail in myalbum to open the photo in Xnview, and then browse and view with Xnview. The two programs complement each other.
I like the tabs you can check in that for subsets and the all tab that shows all thumbnails in the album.

Hello,
It was probably a furtive bug !
But with this new version 1.91.5, category.db file no more will grow without doing anything ( in some cases ).
But of course each personnes have to optimize his category.db file before , if needed, ( by hand or like here: http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?t=13642 - not only for Windows 98 ).
Then Xnview startup (with browser opening) will be faster.

J Smith wrote: FWIW -- I never got the category feature to work right and had forgotten about it. I had no idea the file had grown to 132 KB.

Could you send me your category.db?

Would you believe that as soon as I deleted the file, I decided to clean out my Norton file protection bin? That zapped the deleted the copy.

Fortunately, I have a clone backup machine that had three-week old copy of the file. That is why the one sent by email is only 121 KB. The smaller size says that the file was probably growing with time.

Copy emailed to webmaster@webmaster@xnview.com

with subject line "category file attached"

Anonymous wrote:Would you believe that as soon as I deleted the file, I decided to clean out my Norton file protection bin? That zapped the deleted the copy.

Fortunately, I have a clone backup machine that had three-week old copy of the file. That is why the one sent by email is only 121 KB. The smaller size says that the file was probably growing with time.

Copy emailed to webmaster@webmaster@xnview.com

with subject line "category file attached"

Perhaps a problem, 2 times webmaster@?

I had a category.db that had been around since last year (1.90 betas), but although I tested I could never find a startup difference. I'm wondering whether it's OS-specific, or whether it only looks like a difference because xnview is in cache when you restart it.

How I tested:
Start, close, start, close. This keeps puts everything important in the disk cache. Then start swapping in and out the old, a new one I made by re-importing the old's data, and a blank one; none show the slightest difference in startup time.

I suspect the startup time is more related to loading the thumbnail cache, maybe it loads all images listed in a category, but it's more difficult to test that since you have to flush the disk cache by rebooting. That doesn't really seem to be the case anyway.

foxyshadis wrote: I suspect the startup time is more related to loading the thumbnail cache

Not at all, only category.db was incriminated before v 1.91.5, not XnView.db and not the disk cache.
What is your O.S. and your category.db file size?

XP, and it was 120k originally, 124k after extracting and reimporting to a new file via an sqlite driver, or 7k fresh. Startup time was about 1s with each.

Maybe it has to do with the # of dead entries instead? Mine only had 4 or 5 total.

foxyshadis wrote:XP, and it was 120k originally, 124k after extracting and reimporting to a new file via an sqlite driver, or 7k fresh. Startup time was about 1s with each.

Maybe it has to do with the # of dead entries instead? Mine only had 4 or 5 total.

Could you send me it please to test?

Pierre said:

Copy emailed to webmaster@webmaster@xnview.com

with subject line "category file attached"


Perhaps a problem, 2 times webmaster@?


The address in email sent was correct. I sent the email again to be sure.