Page 1 of 1
Solution to slow browsing/hanging
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:11 pm
by Drahken
I've been trying to figure out why xnview has been very slow to start browsing to the next file (in view mode), often hanging indefinitely. I started with a blank ini file & amazingly everything was fast again. After a lot of comparing, editing, and testing, I was finally able to locate the problematic line & then trace it back to a setting in the prog.
The problem turned out to be the "sort by..." setting in the browser. I had set it to image size at some point, and that's why it was taking so long, setting it to name (number) made it fly along.
I didn't test to see how any other settings affected browsing speed.
Now that I know what the problem was, I can understand why it was slow, having to analyze every image in the folder to find which was next in size. However, since I had had such a hard time locating the problem, I figured I'd give the rest of you a heads up about it, in case you've been having similar problems.
*Note: The sort by setting can only be changed by going into browser mode and then clicking view->sort by.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:46 am
by Irving
By George, you’re right.
Just a couple of hours ago I was in a folder with many images, and clicking Next brought on a “hang” of about 30 seconds. After reading about your solution, I went back to that folder, remembering exactly where I was earlier, and when I clicked Next XnView instantly went to the next image.
Good catch!
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:40 am
by obelisk
I sort mine by ext, and it has no problems.
what's name(num) mean? vs name
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:00 am
by Drahken
Not sure, I just know that "name(numeric)" is the default sort by option.
After doing a few tests with it, it seems that "name(numeric)" doesn't sort properly, and that just plain "name" is better. Both put images that begin with numbers before one that begin with letters (I had thought that might be the difference), but just plain "name" keeps the numbers in proper order. In contrast, "name(numeric)" seems to put the numbers in some random order.
After running these tests, I changed it to sort by just plain "name".
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:45 am
by XnTriq
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:32 pm
by Drahken
I figured out what the name(numeric) does, it arranges images by the length of the word or number first, then by alpha. With this sorting methed, xxx.jpg would come before aaaa.jpg, 987.jpg would come before 1234.jpg, etc. Rather strange method of sorting imo.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:04 pm
by pic_viewer
Drahken wrote:I figured out what the name(numeric) does, it arranges images by the length of the word or number first, then by alpha. With this sorting methed, xxx.jpg would come before aaaa.jpg, 987.jpg would come before 1234.jpg, etc. Rather strange method of sorting imo.
I fail to see what is strange with putting the file DSCF001.jpg before DSCF0002.jpg. Only typical (out of the real world) prgrammers can think that a 1 equals a 10 and is therefore something 'higher' than what every other human being would expect.
Oh help, I sure will get flamed about this one
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:20 pm
by xnview
Drahken wrote:In contrast, "name(numeric)" seems to put the numbers in some random order.
Random?? Could you tell me an example?
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:23 pm
by Irving
For what it's worth, I find that sorting either by Name or Name(numeric) or Date or Extension works great. Even by EXIF in a folder full of .png's works okay.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:34 pm
by Irving
Drahken wrote:Not sure, I just know that "name(numeric)" is the default sort by option.
1.95.4 has the default at sorting by image
Type, whereas sorting by Name would be the more instinctive first choice.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:53 pm
by xnview
Irving wrote:Drahken wrote:Not sure, I just know that "name(numeric)" is the default sort by option.
1.95.4 has the default at sorting by image
Type, whereas sorting by Name would be the more instinctive first choice.
By default?? No it's name(numeric)
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:40 pm
by Irving
By "Type" is what I found after a fresh install, and I never use the Browser function.
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:28 am
by Drahken
xnview- What was random about it was the fact that numbers which began with a 9 would come before numbers beginning with a 3, yet after ones beginning with a 6, and yet there would be other numbers beginning with a 9 way down at the end. There was no apparent pattern at first. As I posted earlier though, I finally figured out that it was posting shorter numbers before longer ones, regardless what the first number in the name was (such as 99 being listed before 1111).
pic_viewer- DSCF001.jpg SHOULD come before DSCF0002.jpg. However, DSCF002.jpg should NOT come before DSCF0001.jpg. While there is room to argue that DSCF99.jpg comes before DSCF100.jpg in natural counting, when you're looking something up in a listing, you look at 1 digit at a time, not the number as a whole.
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:32 am
by xnview
Drahken wrote:xnview- What was random about it was the fact that numbers which began with a 9 would come before numbers beginning with a 3, yet after ones beginning with a 6, and yet there would be other numbers beginning with a 9 way down at the end. There was no apparent pattern at first. As I posted earlier though, I finally figured out that it was posting shorter numbers before longer ones, regardless what the first number in the name was (such as 99 being listed before 1111).
If you have 1file.jpg & 9file.jpg, 1file is before 9file
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:05 am
by pic_viewer
Drahken wrote:While there is room to argue that DSCF99.jpg comes before DSCF100.jpg in natural counting, when you're looking something up in a listing, you look at 1 digit at a time, not the number as a whole.
That's what I mean: I and many others do not do it like that. That's why we have the option Name Numeric in many programs, not only in XnView. I remember a discussion in the TC forum that there exists even two numeric options under Windows, where only one is accepted as correct by a 'normal' user.