Multiple Libraries/Databases

by **Lowlander** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:56 pm

The Mulit Library script sounds much easier. Your method is valid though to actually create the multiple libraries.

by **procul** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:49 pm

So ya go to the .mdb file right,
(My Documents/My Music/ MediaMonkey/MediaMonkey.mdb in Windows
- and if you're dumb enough to be using a Mac well you're so on your own)
and you add a character to the prefix.

Then you launch MM and let it scan/add the tracks you want in your 2nd database.

Whichever database you wish to use: simply alter one's prefix, restore the other to the original filename "MediaMonkey.mdb"

I call this work-around: "Duh."

by **Lowlander** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:37 am

Scripts is the solution for many problems in MM. This keeps the main application simple to use for the novice user. Anyway the scripts normally solve problems of advanced users. I myself am not a fan of this approach, but it is becoming more common in the computing world.
I meant by advanced users that mostly advanced users require multiple DB's, more novice users generally don't require it.

Of course I'd like to see it implemented myself, hehe.

by **drichm** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:17 am

Multiple libraries is something for the more advanced user.

The most basic Multiple Library/Database support would be the equivalent of a "File -> Open (Database)" command, which most Windows programs have.

Of course, once this is added a whole can of worms is opened: such as copying information between databases for certain tracks, 'currently playing' issues, device synchronization configuration issues (which DB is used, is a device associated to a specific DB?), use a MIDI style interface? (i.e. multiple databased open simultaneously, with drag and drop support between them), etc, etc, etc...

However, "File -> Open" is all I need, and opening a new DB can close the currently open one. I could imagine that many others would want a lot more, though.

Dave

P.S. Scripts that copy databases around might be a nice solution for some, but I for one find it a sub-optimal solution (i.e. a hack, the problem with hacks is that when they go wrong they can go very wrong).

by **Lowlander** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:23 am

Multiple libraries is something for the more advanced user. It has been a request for longer then a year actually, but more general user requests have been added like iPod support. I as well would like to see multiple library support, but I understand the delay. There is actually a script in the script forum that allows you to select the library at startup.

by **Guest** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:18 am

I donot understand this. Many people have expressed that they would like to have support for multiple music libraries in MadiaMonkey for more than a year an this is still not happening.

As if this is not frustrating enough for those of us who definately want to see this feature, people come up and say things like "why do you want this", "there is no point in doing this" etc.

Well, if you don't think it is necessary than good for you but other people want this and they explain their reasons why it makes sense to them. The developers have to take us seriously.

I for one think that this is a very important feature because I have a large collection of songs in two different languages and I have different listening preferences for each of them. It would be a great convenience for me to easliy swich between my libraries when I want to listen to my english songs and vice versa.

I hope we get this feature in media monkey soon because otherwise it is a great program.

by **rovingcowboy** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:07 am

yepper steegy but your talking about an operating system not a program made to orgnaize files after you have them in the oprating system.

still not sure but if rusty or jiri can make it happen then i guess the will.

just don't mess up my one database i have now.

by **Steegy** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:27 am

Well, you can have multiple partitions on one hard drive, you can have multiple hard drives in one computer, you can have multiple computers, ...

Sometimes this "multiple" is needed to have an easy way to organise things, not only to have more (especially with partitions).

I don't need multiple databases, *but* I understand why people want this.

Just another "me too" vote, no "rant" ment by it.

Cheers
Steegy

by **rovingcowboy** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:12 pm

drichm wrote:rovingcowboy: I read your previous post in this thread and like most of your posts it is a bit of a rant.

As you can see from most of the posts in this thread plenty of people want multiple database support and say why. If you see no need for it, then good for you. Many of us need it.

Dave

well thanks for reading. but i can not see a need for dublicate database's and nobody has explained good enough for me to see why there is a need for two of them. it just does not make sense, its like trying to control two computers with one processor. it just aint going to work.

by **dinosaur** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:43 am

I would like to be able to switch between network and local databases. I would just build my library with both sets of tracks, but there would be duplicates. So, separate library DBs would be great! Thanks!

by **drichm** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:07 am

rovingcowboy: I read your previous post in this thread and like most of your posts it is a bit of a rant.

As you can see from most of the posts in this thread plenty of people want multiple database support and say why. If you see no need for it, then good for you. Many of us need it.

Dave

by **rovingcowboy** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:02 am

go read my post in the beta testing room called RC 1 Errors.

you will see monkey is having trouble with just one database right now. so what in the world would you want with two?

by **Guest** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:51 am

Abel wrote:Yes, I would love multiple database support as well. I have a limited subset of my music on a laptop and the full set on an external harddisk.

When I'm on the road, I don't have the external harddisk with me, so I would love to use a database that references the subset on the laptop. The files on the laptop are obviously duplicates of the files on the external HD and I don't want to keep the tags different.

If there is another way to organize this without having a bunch of duplicates when the external HD is connected or a bunch of errors when it's not connected I'd be happy to try that too.

Love the speed and feature set of MediaMonkey.

Abel

I am in the same situation - I have a laptop with external hd, all of the music on the external and a small portion that will fit on the laptop. Dont always have the external hd with me.

Also, would be great to be able to switch to another database for newly imported songs to clean them up before adding them to the master database.

by **Steegy** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:00 pm

I guess this would be a "Virtual HD" feature then. Now, there already exists a "Virtual CD" feature with almost the behaviour you describe, but I (90% sure) think it only works for cd's.

Cheers
Steegy

by **Abel** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:19 pm

Yes, I would love multiple database support as well. I have a limited subset of my music on a laptop and the full set on an external harddisk.

When I'm on the road, I don't have the external harddisk with me, so I would love to use a database that references the subset on the laptop. The files on the laptop are obviously duplicates of the files on the external HD and I don't want to keep the tags different.

If there is another way to organize this without having a bunch of duplicates when the external HD is connected or a bunch of errors when it's not connected I'd be happy to try that too.

Love the speed and feature set of MediaMonkey.

Abel

Multiple Libraries/Databases

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Multiple Libraries/Databases

Multiple Databases: easy fully-working solution

WE WANT MULTIPLE LIBRARIES!

another vote for multiple databases!