You might want to try maintaining your database and defragmenting it, that can help. Otherwise use Onkel_Enno's database switcher script or the ini file switching method to switch between databases.

I use MediaMonkey on a laptop. When I am at home, I have an external hard drive; when I am at school, I have a backup external; and when I am elsewhere, I have my internal. I have a filter so that I can switch between viewing external or internal files. My laptop does not handle MM so well, at least with this database (4gb ram, i3 processor). I suspect that if I would switch in between databases, rather than use a filter system, things might be significantly faster: my database has 1.6TB of files though sometimes -- when at friends', for example -- I only use the 350GB or so on my laptop.

Cheers

[quote="Peke"]I'm open to suggestions on solutions.[/quote]
You don't need to invent a wheel, it is enough to see how other media organizers have that realized. There are two main things which such applications have already implement:
1. Open Database -> a possibility to open the specified database, it should replace the current one from the memory, in same way as you open a document in some application which allows work with single document, e.g. Notepad; I bet that implementation of this could be very easy;

2. Import/Export Database -> this is a possibility to import/export some tracks (according to some specified filter, not necessarily related to the current Collection) and/or some other data (Playhistory, Playlists, ...) between some external database and the current (opened) one; it is not big deal either, even my Restore Playhistory/Date Added/Playlists has part of that;

There is one thing which I haven't seen so far in some media organizer (I haven't tested them recently):
3. Open Database into new Tab -> a possibility to open multiple databases in the same time and work with them simultaneously as you work with several documents in e.g. Word; well, this is the hardest one.

I need the first option, but I suppose that there are many users wanting the second and third options either. So, if you want to make a poll, it could contain this:
- I want an option to open specified database instead of the current (default) one;
- I want an option to import/export tracks and/or data from/to specified database;
- I want an option to open several databases in the same time;
- I don't want to see such options implemented because... (please specify a reason in the thread).

However, I don't know what is a point of the new polls if you don't even consider the existing ones. Here is the poll "[url=http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52426]Ability to show all Tabs Toolbar even only single Tab is used[/url]". Have you implemented the solution with the largest number of votes? No, you implemented a solution with the smallest number of votes instead.

@Zvezdan,
What would you put in the poll?

There is also one more thing we touched in this thread and that is Library Export (I call it "Publish & Share") Option with accompanying option to Manage Published/Shared libraries.

@Zvezdan and Others
I'm open to suggestions on solutions. Few things needs to be satisfied to make that possible:
- Published Library needs to be SQLite
- Handling Filters
- Classifying Imported Data and clear separation from main Library
- Speed consideration regarding Search
- Managing those Libraries
- Imported Libraries separation from Main Library

Additionally I'm Open to questions and will try to answer them as much as possible.

Comparison with most used apps and their solution on sharing libraries would be useful too (Winamp, iTunes, SongBird, MMJB, WMP).

[quote="Lowlander"]I personally think that MediaMonkey's approach is much more flexible.[/quote]
Yeah, sure. You could even say that MediaMonkey is the only media organizer which has filters. Big deal. I already told you in this thread, there is a bunch of media organizers which have both filters and possibility to open different databases. Their authors don't glorify that as some great revelation.

[quote="Lowlander"]Other than having to deal with testing databases of other users the Collections/Filters approach is much more flexible than using actual separated database files.[/quote]
Many users want to deal with another databases not only for testing purposes, but because they got them e.g. from friends. If I get the database file from someone and want to take a look at the contained tracks just once or twice, why should I want to merge that database with mine? In fact, such approach would be unpractical for several reasons, even if I use Filters (you could call them Collections, but that doesn't change anything). At least it would be worse because one large database is slower then several smaller ones and more prone to the corruption. Not to mention that I don't have friend's actual audio files and I cannot add them into my database using Add/Rescan option. As I said to you before, the solution with .ini file and script for switching databases is just dirty and ugly hack. No offense to the author of that script, he did a great job, but that doesn't mean that such solution should be an excuse for MM developers to not implement a proper support for multiple databases.

Well, you could repeat the same arguments over and over, but if we made a poll of this thread, you would see clearly that you are minority - just take a look how many users requested this option so far. Why do you think that your arguments are better then their ones?

The great Sir Isaac Newton once said..."Even my Library has some crappy books in it "

I personally think that MediaMonkey's approach is much more flexible. You can create Libraries on the fly as needed, you can show all tracks together if needed and separate tracks as needed. MediaMonkey 4 will take a slightly different approach with Collections instead of Filters and this will allow you to have all your "Libraries" in the Tree so you can easily jump between the different "Libraries".
Other than having to deal with testing databases of other users the Collections/Filters approach is much more flexible than using actual separated database files. And even for switching databases there is the ini file method or the switch database addon. The latter probably being as involved as a build in solution would be.

All this multiple Library talk is crazy. Imagine going to a "Library" looking for a Fiction book and being told that you're at the wrong Library, "you need to go over to the Non-Fiction Library.

A Library is a Library. a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use. Only 1 is needed.

[quote="ZvezdanD"]It is the fact that this wish has the longest thread in this Forum with the greatest number of posts requesting the same thing. You don't need to replay on each and every such post with the suggestion about filters. If so many users ask for such thing then it is hardly believable that all of them are dumb and don't know to use the filter option instead of the non-existent support for multiple databases. Instead, you should ask yourself if such large number of request could mean that there is a real need for that option.[/quote]

Thank you. I am a music collector as well as a lover of listening to music. I have countless things in my library that I keep for collector reasons, that I really rarely want to listen to. I have two purposes for using MediaMonkey, listening to music, and managing my entire collection. I think separate databases is really the most elegant way of handling this.

As multiple time I told and compared MM with WhereIsIt. Only thing I'm Missing is easy way to Import My Friends library into my library and be able to search/compare.

On several occasions we have tried to make workable way to Import/Use External MM.DB along with your own MM.DB and it proved not that easy as we thought along with Memory and CPU HOG.

[quote="nohitter151"]Okay, that is a valid reason. But I really doubt that all the other users posting in this thread are requesting this feature for the same reason.[/quote]
Who said that all users want such option for the same reason? As I said - this is just my one example, giving you a proof that your claim is not right. I think that you could find in this thread several another valid posted reasons as well, and I could mention several another ones, if you are really interested.

However, I think that it really doesn't matter for what reasons other users needs such option. It is the fact that this wish has the longest thread in this Forum with the greatest number of posts requesting the same thing. You don't need to replay on each and every such post with the suggestion about filters. If so many users ask for such thing then it is hardly believable that all of them are dumb and don't know to use the filter option instead of the non-existent support for multiple databases. Instead, you should ask yourself if such large number of request could mean that there is a real need for that option.

[quote="ZvezdanD"][quote="nohitter151"]I haven't seen any scenario explained in this thread where multiple libraries is required because filters were not able to provide the exact same functionality.[/quote]
http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202150#p202150:
"Just my example - I am developing scripts and I have several databases that some users sent me for tests. Whenever I want to test my scripts with some another database I need to restart program and to modify database filename, which is pretty tedious."[/quote]
Okay, that is a valid reason. But I really doubt that all the other users posting in this thread are requesting this feature for the same reason.

[quote="nohitter151"]I haven't seen any scenario explained in this thread where multiple libraries is required because filters were not able to provide the exact same functionality.[/quote]
http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202150#p202150:
"Just my example - I am developing scripts and I have several databases that some users sent me for tests. Whenever I want to test my scripts with some another database I need to restart program and to modify database filename, which is pretty tedious."

[quote="progcode"][quote="nohitter151"]But you can already separate by filters and then use auto-dj based on filter, which would already exclude those tracks.[/quote]

That's fine, but auto-dj is not the only reason that I or anyone else would like to see this. This is a long thread.[/quote]
I haven't seen any scenario explained in this thread where multiple libraries is required because filters were not able to provide the exact same functionality.

With one exception, someone mentioned filters are not an option because you can't "password protect" them. But who is to say if the devs implement multiple libraries that there will be any password protection? That's an entirely different feature request.

[quote="nohitter151"]But you can already separate by filters and then use auto-dj based on filter, which would already exclude those tracks.[/quote]

That's fine, but auto-dj is not the only reason that I or anyone else would like to see this. This is a long thread.