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). -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.