Hi @nadl40. In theory, the throttling should not apply. I would be very interested to hear how it performs.
Edit. The throttling is in Picard not the plugin.
To the best of your knowledge, is the Picard throttling auto disabled when using local server ?
I really can’t answer as I am away from my PC and don’t know off the top of my head. Perhaps @outsidecontext can say?
Hi @MetaTunes. I’v done a quick test. 899 flac tracks, 30 or so albums.
MB run for 14 minutes, on my local for 12 minutes, so not a big difference.
Have you seen/tried this?:
1 Like
1 Like
Is that ever working. On my local MB it went from 12 minutes to 6 minutes, limiting factor was understandably fingerprinting. On the refresh, no cache, it took under 2 minutes. Great improvement 
1 Like
I’m curious: how ‘powerful’ is your local server? (cpu/memory)
I am asking because it was mentioned on this forum that you would need a really powerful computer to get some noticeable speed gains from running a local database.
Hi @hiccup. Not powerful at all, just a Lenovo ThinkCentre i7 with 8GB and SSD for linux host, 4 threads on 2 cores, local network, off lease machine for about $300 USD.
I’m working on my own scripts and if I did not have a local server, it would be very slow as I’m doing lots of calls for Classical.
That would have my (file) server for breakfast.
(Intel Atom based, 2GB)
1 Like
well, my file server is PI4…, databases need more cycles.
In trying to figure something out, I am running into something I don’t understand:
I thought that the count of cwp_work-part_levels would match the number of populated _cwp_work_n entries.
So if the level count is 2, you would have entries for: _cwp_work_0 and 1
If 3, _cwp_work_0 ,1 and 2
etc.
But looking at these three examples, there doesn’t seem to be a relation.
(only the second one displays what I would expect)
Am I misunderstanding how this works? Or is it a result of inconsistent ways in how these releases were entered in the database?
Is that one release or several? Can you post the link(s)?
In case it’s helpful, here are a couple of others that don’t seem to match:
Links removed; no longer needed and they claimed a lot of space.
Sorry, no time to look at this in any detail. However, I suspect the answer is as follows:
You are using _cwp_work_part_levels. It seems what you want is _cwp_part_levels. The one you are using is the max number of levels for any track within the overall work. See the help file 
Not sure why the different releases give different answers without access to my PC, but it seems like you are using the wrong variable anyway.
That’s not the case, and this is not so much about me getting incorrect results.
I only mentioned this because when in the past I looked into this deeper and constructed ‘my scheme’, I thought that the value of _cwp_work_part_levels always matched the number of entries for _cwp_work_n
I probably remembered wrong then.
I am not experiencing any real problems because of this, but I thought to mention it in case some error you weren’t’ aware about might have slipped into the plugin.
So that’s not the case then. All is fine!
1 Like
This specific recording will not get saved:
It’s not related to file corruption or read-only.
(I created a brand new copy of the file, and also used a second Picard install for confirming the problem)
(hovering over the red warning icon only says ‘Great match’
error log:
E: 21:28:40,761 util.thread.run:64: Traceback (most recent call last):
File “picard\util\thread.py”, line 60, in run
File “picard\file.py”, line 294, in _save_and_rename
File “picard\formats\vorbis.py”, line 300, in _save
File “picard\formats\vorbis.py”, line 319, in _remove_deleted_tags
IndexError: list index out of range
I think I just fixed this this week. You are trying to delete a performer or comment tag from the file, right?
1 Like
Well, not me intentionally. I ended up testing with a vanilla Picard, no scripts.
The release saved o.k. without CE activated, but as soon as I activated the plugin, only that specific track refuses to save.
So maybe that track contains some tag that CE is trying to delete? I am not sure.