MM3+ wishes: Multiple databases

[ariel]

Background: http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99413

Do I need to explain?

Example: When I started using MM I wanted to use it also to catalog my vinyl records and audio CD's. That's at least 30k more tracks. Having that "catalog" mixed with the records of MP3 tracks was really messy.

Ariel.

[XratedFozzibaer]

One of my biggest problems with MM is, that I use it on my MacBook Pro. I don't have much free diskspace for music. So my main stock is on an external harddrive and some files (especially new ones) are on my mbp.
I think it would be very comfortable to have a database-file for each music-location. In my case, one file on my mbp for my "allways-with-me-songs" and one file on my external harddrive for my big library. So if my external harddrive is not attached to my mbp I only see the internal songs.
Another approach to this problem could be the integration of an option to temporarily hide songs which are on a special location. In the treeview, sorted by location, could be checkmarks which determine the songs shown in the actual library-view.

I really would appreciate something like this.

[Mizery_Made]

Another approach to this problem could be the integration of an option to temporarily hide songs which are on a special location.

Might be possible with the 'Library Filters' introduced in MM3 Alpha as a Gold Feature.

[Spazz]

yup, one of the filters in MM3 is Accessable tracks.

[XratedFozzibaer]

Really good news for me!
That's great, I'll have a look at the beta.

Thanx for the hint.

[ariel]

That indeed seems to be a very nice feature, and from what was said in this thread it's possibly a solution to my "show/don't offline tracks" wish.

Small but: I wish these filters will be assignable to toolbar buttons for easy switching, not requiring re-filling an "advanced search" type of dialog each time.

Major but: This is NOT a solution for multiple database needs.

Real life example:

As I mentioned I have some 45K digital tracks, about 12K on the HD and 33 on backup CD's & DVD's. I also have over 30K (not sure of the exact figure) audio tracks (CD or vinyl).

For the audio set of tracks I want the database to be a mirror of what I have on the physical albums, a more or less static catalog. All the processing and playing is done with the digital set - these are the tracks that I rate, that I check for duplicates, etc.

Why would I want every selection (search, autoplaylist, etc) I make of digital tracks to include some condition that will exclude the audio tracks set?

Why would I want all the operations I perform on the database records of the digital tracks to take place in a >75K records database instead of a 45K records database? It's not just a matter of response time - as I mentioned in my message concerning the location of the database(s), database operations are very disk intensive and shorten HD lives.

Filter out offline tracks (aka "not accessible") - yes. Filter out all tracks added to the database before a certain date - yes. Filter out all tracks longer than 5 minutes - yes. Etc, etc. Force entire collections which have very little in common into one huge database - no.

Ariel.

[And I hope the new v3 database engine is better because the MM2 MS access one becomes very sluggish past 40K records, at least on my machine (and I compress the database practically every time I exit MM).

[Teknojnky]

You can have a filter with a limit:

path/filename + does/does not contain + the path you want to include/exclude

I have over 100k tracks in my mm2.5 database, and I would not call it sluggish really.

Some things may take some time to process, which sometimes causes the application window to temporarily freeze, but normally its not more than a few seconds (albeit stil annoying).

I am very happy with the general performance of mm2, and even moreso of the latest mm3 versions.