Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Optimal directory structure for best performance? (Read 688 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Optimal directory structure for best performance?

I have multiple music folders and subfolders across 2 different drives (artists by genre, compilations, classical, mp3, flac, etc) and Foobar monitors them all as separate libraries.  Foobar also seems to be slower lately when searching in Facets.  Not sure if it's my Facets search strings, or if my directory structures/libraries might just be inefficient for the software to handle. 

Is there an optimal directory structure that I should change to?  Theoretically, would Foobar be faster if I had every album in one single folder, rather than broken up in various directories?  Is it better to have it monitor a single library folder, rather than 7 or 8 libraries?

Re: Optimal directory structure for best performance?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: hexenszene on
Foobar also seems to be slower
Which version do you use?
Quote from: hexenszene on
Not sure if it's my Facets search strings, or if my directory structures/libraries might just be inefficient for the software to handle.
Your search strings. The directory structure simply doesn't matter at all.

Re: Optimal directory structure for best performance?

Reply #2 –
Quote
Which version do you use?

1.6.16. 
I think you're right that it's probably Facets.  Foobar monitors about 5 library folders across different drives.  I set up a top level Facets pane that uses the directory path as the primary method of sorting... it can be sluggish.
Thanks for your reply.

Re: Optimal directory structure for best performance?

Reply #3 –
Try - but as portable first! - the 2.0 beta. What happens? Faster? Slower?

2.0 re-implements facets as Re-facets, but in the 32-bit version you can still run the old foo_facets component (I think).