>>17299
Great, no worries.
>>17300
>>17301
Yeah, just the db files are changed in an update.
If you use FreeFileSync, you can have it compare file-size/file-modified-date to calculate a backup. This runs very fast for an incremental backup job since it recognises all your media hasn't changed and will only overwrite your db files and a few thumbs maybe and add/delete any new/deleted media files. A neat trick, then, is you can simply tell it to reverse the operation and it'll do a complete rollback that is equally as fast and comprehensive. I do a backup before I update every week, so if it goes wrong, I can just rollback and it'll do the db files for me.
>>17302
I'm glad you are enjoying things now. I've been doing a lot of optimisation over the past few years, and a bunch of API stuff is working a bit faster, I think, just because my own UI code isn't so clogged and it has free reign to fetch URL statuses and stuff freely. Let me know if things ever start getting laggy again.
>>17307
Yeah. Please do a search in this thread and in
>>>/hydrus/ for 'exe manager' or 'executable manager', and you'll see me talking about my general plans here. I want it, and it is becoming more important with AI autotaggers and upscalers and stuff, but it'll be a big project.
>>17308
Damn, so that side of things seems to be fine, although 20 seconds feels too long. I'll do some work and see what I can do to better plug into the session signals, since it seems like hydrus isn't catching the SIGTERM here, or pre-SIGTERM 'hey session is closing are you good?' stuff, exactly as we want. This stuff isn't always easy to test, but let me know if the overall situation changes in future please.
>>17315
Interesting problem! I don't think you'll be able to make a duplicate search that does 'namespace:n', 'namespace:n+1'.
If you are not super strict about the n,n+1 requirement--i.e. what you really want to do is examine similar frames--then I'd just let the system work as normal, since it will recognise that frame 5 and 6 are very similar anyway. It might say that 5 and 7 are similar too, or 5 and 57, so if that is a dealbreaker then not.
If you are very strict about only comparing neighbouring frames, I think, I don't know, you'd probably have to try and figure it out through the client api. Something like:
https://hydrusnetwork.github.io/hydrus/developer_api.html#manage_file_relationships_remove_potentials - do this on all the frames, dissolving what hydrus has already recognised
https://hydrusnetwork.github.io/hydrus/developer_api.html#manage_file_relationships_set_file_relationships - do this programatically on each n, n+1 pair
https://hydrusnetwork.github.io/hydrus/developer_api.html#get_files_search_files - this to help you find the n, n+1 pairs' file_ids
Then,
I think the duplicate filter would present you the pairs as you want. BUT as you said that some were better quality, let's say you said 2 > 3, then 2 would represent 3's spot against 4, so you'd be presented with 2,4 anyway.
I think my overall suggestion is to try this on a smaller sample of frames the natural way. Just run them through the filter, let's say without deleting anything, and see if the answer is anything like what you wanted with the n,n+1 idea. Just letting the duplicate filter find and compare pairs is probably going to be KISS here.
>>17320
Thanks, bad grammar, I'll fix it.
>>17324
Not yet, but I'd like to introduce it in the not too distant future. The PTR janitors want the same thing, and a bunch of debug situations want the splitting of fine differences here. It'll come in the form of a system:predicate that searches tags specially according to tag display context (with or without siblings) and tag service (i.e. other than the current tag domain if you want).