Karaoke Forums

On an external HD I have my library in mp3+g zipped format.

I have a FOLDER by Manu and then sub-folders for each disc and inside those are  the individual song files etc.   I was wondering if cutting out the DISC folders and just having all my soundchoice mp3+g files  in a folder titled : SOUNDCHOICE
would be more efficient for my system ?

any thoughts??

No, in fact it will be the opposite if you have any number of disks at all.

(In general, when you are searching for one file when queuing up a singer, the difference is going to be negligible. But I will discuss the issues anyway, in case you are talking about doing something that accesses lots of files.)

When a file is searched for in a directory, you have to sequentially search each entry (at least for most file system types) to see if they match. The number of comparisons on average will be N/2. If you have a directory with large numbers of files in it, then N is large and you have to compare many times.

If you have two levels, where N is relatively small in each, then your average search time will be smaller.

So take a SoundChoice directory that has 3,000 files in 200 disks. Your average search number will be 1500 in the flat directory (3000/2). If you went to 200 disk folders with 15 files each, your average search would be 200/2 plus 15/2, or 107.

If you went farther and did SC81XX/SC8173/....*, it might be something like 10/2 + 20/2 + 15/2, or 22.

So on balance (for most file system types including FAT on Windows) you will benefit by more levels of directory, not fewer.

If you are using NTFS, this changes somewhat as it uses B+ trees. But when you get more than a couple thousand files, you increase the number of hash buckets and nodes,  so you won't lose much if anything with more directories.

Mick
Generally when I'm searching for a "song" it is by TITLE or by ARTIST.
I'm never looking up individual discs and tracks.   So let say for arguments sake I have a total of 20,000 songs by many manufacturers in hundreds of folders and sub folders etc.    This would be BETTER than just a FEW very large folders by individual manufacter?    appreciate your wisdom as I know NOTHING about the workings of computers etc.

Now I am at a loss. Without knowing what method you are using for your search, I cannot say.

If you are clicking through directories to find songs, that is pretty inefficient -- most people use a karaoke hosting program and just search that way.

I have written a script that takes a database of my tracks and searches that.

I don't know if this add anything or not to the discussion.

I am a KJ, and started running on computer a number of years ago (before it was in vogue). I set up my system with folders for each disk, and the songs in each disk folder. My logic at the time was that the song books would look the same to the customers. The song request slips are the same, disk number and song number.

I still seach the songs using the folders, even though I could type and find... don't know why exactly, it's just the way I do it.

Just another less technical reason for having folders.

personally, I like having the method of going to the individual manu, then the disc, then right-clicking on the selection to enqueue it. I've done this with both my winamp and my clubdjpro hostings. This is EXACTLY like putting the disc in the player, so it's very easy to teach new kjs that worked for me.

For something like karafun or hoster where you do the search for the artist or song title, it might be easier to have them in single folders... likewise, doing a search for a unique string of words would be great... but if it had a lot of searches, then it would be a pain.

Like with all things, whatever works best for ya!

It may seem archaic (SP) to some, but I like to see the actual file before I put it in the playlist. I think your right, it's like putting the disk in the player...never thought of it that way, but it makes sense.

Thanks for the replies and I guess the question was to vague and general.
so I'll try again -  I'm using a hosting software PCDJ-KJ .  I will post this question on their forum as it might be software specific.  But in general I was wondering which would be more efficient to use for general computing needs.

1) fewer folders but  many more files in each
2) More folders and sub folders with only 7-13 files in each

I really don't need  to have each disc folder  as I am using another program to
perform any file type maintenance or corrections ( KJ file Manager)

Then the answer is clear -- the difference is negligible for the types of uses that you have, and it will be more efficent people-wise to have more folders 1) since you already have them in that format and 2) if you ever do need to do anything outside of your software it will be much easier to see the structure.

Thank you !!

Can't you set the hosting program to search a number of different ways?  You can select the method of the search.  Be it artist, disc, song name etc.

Side

The program will search any way you can imagine. the question was more of a behind the scenes computer question.... That I know NOTHING about

> When a file is searched for in a directory, you have to sequentially search
> each entry (at least for most file system types) to see if they match. The
> number of comparisons on average will be N/2. If you have a directory
> with large numbers of files in it, then N is large and you have to compare
> many times.

Hm... your answer sounds logical, but I am not sure if it is correct.

Let us define what "search"  means exactly before I go on. I understand, that there is a given file folder ("/songs"). Starting from this I want to search for a file which is

a) either in this folder, together with 19.999 other songs or
b) in one of 2.000 subfolders, 10 files each

Let us say that our file is exactly the number 10.000 in the list

Now let us think about a search routine:

For a) the routine searches the one folder and (hopefully) shows the result in an average time of n/2 search cycles, so for us 10.000 search cycles.

For b) The software starts to look in the root folder (/songs), starts with the first subfolder (subfolder_1), scans 10 files, returns to the root folder, opens subfolder_2 and so on until it comes to the searched file. If it is the number  10.000, the search still had to scan 10.000 file names BUT also 1000 folders ... so your search should take 10 percent longer than if everything is in one large root folder.

I think your mistake is that you presume that the search routine KNOWS in which subfolder your file is - but for a true search, this is not the case. Your answer is true when you have a playlist where you see the title and the software knows exactly the place where the file is stored (e.g. /songs/subfolder_972/file2002.cdg ). Then it might be faster because of your argumentation.

But if it is a real search (e.g. the Windows build in search routine) I think your answer is wrong.