I downloaded the beta of 2xexplorer2 (0.9.0.77) and found out the great option of choosing from a large list of columns including dimensions.
This is great as I work with JPG data a lot. However, sorting on dimensions takes ages (I thought the appl stopped responding initially) but when I reduced the number of files it worked. It needs about 2 minutes for 1000 files, which is quite slow. Perhaps this needs some additonal work as the function itself is great!
Sorting on dimensions
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
This is a known fact that sorting of certain features take a lot longer than the "stock" features which can be read quickly from the MFT (as opposed to needing to open the file itself or one or more of its auxiliary file streams).
Perhaps nikos can look into extracting that data once (or only upon detecting certain trigger events) and keeping the current sort column parameter in a cache.
I suppose investigating improvements could go on a to-consider list for future. (Lately nikos has been complaining about his to-do-next list beeing way too long.)
hmmm... when to cache, when to update, how many columns to cache, lots of considerations ... To implement this in a useful fashion will require user input, or the designer could go crazy trying to imagine all the cases ...
And then, "How often would how many users need this feature to be fast?"
...
Forgive the ramble, but I hope you get my gist ... and if many users would find improvement here valuable, speak up in a chorus & you might get nikos' attention
PS: Is it always slow each time you sort, or only when opening a new folder?
(Those 'other' param's are extracted in a background thread & may already be cached -- they just have to be extracted first, & that takes time to open each file & get the data)
Perhaps nikos can look into extracting that data once (or only upon detecting certain trigger events) and keeping the current sort column parameter in a cache.
I suppose investigating improvements could go on a to-consider list for future. (Lately nikos has been complaining about his to-do-next list beeing way too long.)
hmmm... when to cache, when to update, how many columns to cache, lots of considerations ... To implement this in a useful fashion will require user input, or the designer could go crazy trying to imagine all the cases ...
And then, "How often would how many users need this feature to be fast?"
...
Forgive the ramble, but I hope you get my gist ... and if many users would find improvement here valuable, speak up in a chorus & you might get nikos' attention
PS: Is it always slow each time you sort, or only when opening a new folder?
(Those 'other' param's are extracted in a background thread & may already be cached -- they just have to be extracted first, & that takes time to open each file & get the data)
what's this dimensions column? never heard of it!
surely it must be one of these explorer columns
in such a case, x2 isn't responsible; i just tell explorer, "sort this out for me b*ts" and don't even know whether it caches anything or nothing!
whenever possible, use the stock columns, those with [S] after their name. Much faster!
btw, how long does it take explorer to sort by the same column?
surely it must be one of these explorer columns
in such a case, x2 isn't responsible; i just tell explorer, "sort this out for me b*ts" and don't even know whether it caches anything or nothing!
whenever possible, use the stock columns, those with [S] after their name. Much faster!
btw, how long does it take explorer to sort by the same column?
jpg (& other media files) have additional properties / auxiliary data available in NTFS.
Copyright
Artist
Album Title
Year
Track Number
Genre
Duration
Bit Rate
Protected
Camera Model
Date Picture Taken
Dimensions
Company
Description
File Version
Product Name
Product Version
But I wouldn't call them explorer columns just because thats the slave you use to get them
And I checked with a couple of my photo folders & also find that when asked to sort on these data, the process is much slower (10 secs vs 0.1 sec for 100 MB folders with abt 200 jpg files).
I understand you are prob using high-level shell instructions, but wonder if there aren't lower level ones that will perform faster here, or at least a 'switch' to "get from cache", vs "re-sort after opening each file again to get the data". Obviuosly it would take some effort to research & implement -- so that must go in the "later" queue.
Copyright
Artist
Album Title
Year
Track Number
Genre
Duration
Bit Rate
Protected
Camera Model
Date Picture Taken
Dimensions
Company
Description
File Version
Product Name
Product Version
But I wouldn't call them explorer columns just because thats the slave you use to get them
And I checked with a couple of my photo folders & also find that when asked to sort on these data, the process is much slower (10 secs vs 0.1 sec for 100 MB folders with abt 200 jpg files).
I understand you are prob using high-level shell instructions, but wonder if there aren't lower level ones that will perform faster here, or at least a 'switch' to "get from cache", vs "re-sort after opening each file again to get the data". Obviuosly it would take some effort to research & implement -- so that must go in the "later" queue.
The "EXIF data" gives more information about digital photos.
See http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-exif/
See http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-exif/
the only way you could attract my attention is if you convinced me that x2 does it slower than explorer wrt such columns
other than that there is no way to figure out extended columns. Even if i somehow magically did that, tomorrow somebody could come up with a new column that lists some other file information for document type X. It's a battle you can't win!
other than that there is no way to figure out extended columns. Even if i somehow magically did that, tomorrow somebody could come up with a new column that lists some other file information for document type X. It's a battle you can't win!