On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 16:33 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Always Learning wrote:
If the pictures are named sequentially, why not store then at a 100 per directory structure something like this
/pix/0/00/pix00001.jpg
/pix/0/26/pix02614.jpg
/pix/6/72/pix67255.jpg
Go read Knuth
One does not do that because then one is counting on the end user's data to conform to, and to continue to conform to your expectations [here you have added an invisible constraint of 'pix' as the first part of the file name which you are hoping remains constant -- it will not, as survey of naming schemes used by digital camera makers will reveal]. Your explicit constraint of a monotonicly increasing image number is also not likely to be realized in a world where people will erase or for other reasons not submit all of a given photo shoot
I did begin with 'IF' :-)
Photo-shoot or whatever, using the 'rename' command means pictures can adopt a uniform numbering system. There is no logical or genuine practical reason to accept a disorganised mess.
I have about 21,000+ pictures - all my own work. I can find and display any of them within about 17 seconds (just timed myself) using basic operating system commands. (My database application is unfinished).