Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR can't use a library that's on a network drive  (Read 9795 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2903



WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2007, 02:46:35 AM »
ReplyReply

No it doesn't. That suggestion is only useful if you want to examine the database with an external tool.

John
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2903



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2007, 02:51:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Also search Sourceforge for "SQLite Database Browser"

John
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2007, 04:11:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But does LR support the ODBC interface?
I thought the point was to use ODBC to access the database, not to access Lightroom.

As far as I know, Adobe doesn't provide an ODBC driver for Lightroom, but that seems orthogonal to the question asked.

Quote
If you're happy with sqlite there's no need for ODBC.
It is useful if you e.g. want to import the data into a different database, though.
Logged

Jan
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2007, 02:27:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom does indeed use SQLite, which also explains why network drives are not supported.  Any database access across a network *must* support some form of concurrency or multi-user support.  SQLite's method is applying a file level lock on the entire database file.

Although SQL methods such as Begin Transaction, Commit and Rollback are supported - the low-level result is the crude locking scheme described.  Although you *might* get away with this for very small files - no way on even a modest lightroom db.

Looking at the internal tables and schema of the database is interesting.  

http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite.html

hth - john
Logged

dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2007, 05:16:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought the point was to use ODBC to access the database, not to access Lightroom.

As far as I know, Adobe doesn't provide an ODBC driver for Lightroom, but that seems orthogonal to the question asked.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The question was not if Adobe provides an ODBC interface but rather it they use one as this would permit the user to sub a more robust database that would work over a network.

- DL
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 05:17:03 PM by dlashier » Logged

Woodcorner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2007, 12:41:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom does indeed use SQLite, which also explains why network drives are not supported. 

<snip>
hth - john
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
SQLite databases may be shared on a network. There are various projects working on this topic. Check out:
[a href=\"http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SqliteNetwork]http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SqliteNetwork[/url]

Cheers,

Andrew
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2007, 04:30:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The question was not if Adobe provides an ODBC interface but rather it they use one as this would permit the user to sub a more robust database that would work over a network.
In that case, I misread the question completely.

I would be very surprised if a commercial company even considered using ODBC for what they consider an application-internal database. It's far more likely that they considered using Berkeley DB or other integrated solutions.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2007, 04:32:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
SQLite databases may be shared on a network.
Oh, the pain!

Why do people come up with those ideas? I know of people who try to use Access databases in a similar manner, too. It's awful.

Use a real database already.
Logged

Jan
allenlux
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2007, 10:00:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I think there may be some confusion in this thread between 2 issues:

1) shared (multi-user) access to LR library database:
- clearly needs more than SQLite, more difficult to implement, quite reasonably not done in LR V1 but presumably not excluded as a future line of development by Adobe.

2) storing LR library database on a network volume:
- even in single-user mode, this can be useful for several reasons - some users (like me) put all their critical files on a server to take advantage of regular backup, others use NAS and so forth.
- as far as I know there is nothing in SQLite which prevents an SQLite database being on a network volume.
- therefore I don't quite understand why Adobe blocked this in LR v1. Maybe they were just being hyper-cautious, foreseeing that people would try to share an LR database on a network volume and screw it up. On the other hand, I can give access to my PC's hard disk to other users on my network, so even local hard disk storage is not immune to attempts at simultanous access by multiple users.
Logged
Woodcorner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2007, 10:16:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oh, the pain!

Why do people come up with those ideas? I know of people who try to use Access databases in a similar manner, too. It's awful.

Use a real database already.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jani,

please note my wording: they *may* be shared over a network. I wasn't suggesting that this is a particulary good idea. In fact, I totally agree with everthing you pointed out.

I simply responded to the argument that SQLite databases cannot be shared over a network.

Cheers,

Andrew
Logged
dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2007, 01:24:11 PM »
ReplyReply

You can put an Access DB on a network drive  but there's hugh performance issues even with a single user (ignoring multiple access) because the actual DB engine is still on the local machine and just chunks hugh pieces of the DB across the network. What you really need for this scenario is a true database server with DB on server local drive where only the queries and query results will transit the network. SQLite is not a client-server and I suspect this is the real issue.

Quote
I would be very surprised if a commercial company even considered using ODBC for what they consider an application-internal database.

My mail server does this - there are options to store various stuff in a DB's and all is done via ODBC allowing you to choose Access, SQL Server, mySQL, SQL Express, SQLite, etc. My Radius server and web middleware also support choice of database via ODBC. I'm sure LR will allow this flexibility eventually also, I just think that in the long run it would have been simpler to start this way even if multi-user was not supported to begin with.

- DL
Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2007, 02:07:17 PM »
ReplyReply

If you look at the structure of the LR Database you will quickly begin to see that Multi-User access is definately in the cards - I suspect, with a 1.0 release offering a radically different solution and workflow, Adobe chose to just not "go there" with multi-user or even network capabilities, in fact LR 1.0 opens it's database exclusively.  

By *not* offering ODBC access, they effectivly prevent multi-user access - but that is not the same as saying they will not offer it or some other method in the future.  I fully expect and hope to see eventual 3rd party offerings integrating LR with DAM and Content Management solutions - it would make great business sense for everyone.

-John
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 02:35:44 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

asgawth
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2007, 04:09:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there may be some confusion in this thread between 2 issues:

1) shared (multi-user) access to LR library database:
- clearly needs more than SQLite, more difficult to implement, quite reasonably not done in LR V1 but presumably not excluded as a future line of development by Adobe.

2) storing LR library database on a network volume:
- even in single-user mode, this can be useful for several reasons - some users (like me) put all their critical files on a server to take advantage of regular backup, others use NAS and so forth.
- as far as I know there is nothing in SQLite which prevents an SQLite database being on a network volume.
- therefore I don't quite understand why Adobe blocked this in LR v1. Maybe they were just being hyper-cautious, foreseeing that people would try to share an LR database on a network volume and screw it up. On the other hand, I can give access to my PC's hard disk to other users on my network, so even local hard disk storage is not immune to attempts at simultanous access by multiple users.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I could not agree more.  Well said.

I fall into the second group, choosing to keep all critical data - and that includes images - on a RAID 5 array on a networked server.  This is exported to my Windows XP workstation using NFS.  (sorry for the techie bits) Just to make sure I don't loose data, the RAID array, is additionally backed-up to tape.

So, Mr. Adobe, insisting your application database is stored on a locally connected disk is fine for a beta, but for a mission-critical application I need something far more robust.   Please, Please, Please get support for networked storage sorted.  

After all, networked databases are hardly something new.

Andrew Gawthrope
HAPY Imaging
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad