I'm having the same issue. Holding my breath every single time I do search. This wasn't the case in 1.6.

My library is also large and notice the same thing having more than 2TB in use also. I've done about 12 shows since 1.7 was released. One day, Serato was running 10 hours straight.

I never crashed. Basically, the screen just stops refreshing while the search is executed.

One of the things I notice is if you have a very large crate, there is a longer delay the first time you access that crate. I started expanding the crates I knew I would access.

That's a known issue which will be fixed in an upcoming version. MAke sure however, that Serato knows that you're suffering from this issue. This helps them prioritizing issues.

Same issue here.........

Hey Guys,

We are aware of the interface freezing a little when using the search box. It is being investigated and will be fixed in a future release.

As far as guidelines for managing your library, this article is pretty handy: support.serato.com

In terms of getting in touch with support to let them know you are experiencing issues they can be reached here: serato.com

Sam

Was this missed while in beta? So in the meantime it's ok to have a piece of software that freezes everytime a search is done? I'm just trying to get a sense of what the current state of software releases is with Serato. This one's got me scratching my head.

No, this was reported in the Public Beta stage. They seemed to have postphoned it as it does not affect the computer's stability. Though it might affect the stability of the user's mind and peace ;)

Wow. Ok. I have no words.

I thought I was the only one with this problems...

I made a Video for you guys at serato to compare and show you whats going on...

1.7 is the most stable version of serato DJ however its not as perfect as Scratch Live almost
but you guys are almost there kudos but you guys need to fix this Bug in your next update..

I just hate it that I press back and takes forever to look for a song or if I make a mistake same thing.. Lag and slow

At first I thought it was a hard drive issue using videos and those files are considerably bigger than regular mp3. So I updated my mac to 1TB solid state drive as well on my external to SSD as well. My external drive is Thunderbolt drive so everything i can possibly make my mac super fast is there..

However serato DJ is still slow :( when typing songs in search bar :(
So I came to conclusion its software thing not hardware

Please fix its annoying :(

On the other note thanks for listening to us when we complained about chronological cues!

JohnnySeriuss

LOL it sure does affect my peace of mind ... could you please explain the rationale in Serato handling 5 X what scratch live can load = whats that number (quantity)?....I moved from Scratch live a while back and didn't have this issue (freezing while searching) and just curious (not complaining) ...I love Serato DJ but this issue has me sweating everytime to the point where I avoid searching songs and having a crate with songs i know i will play that night which reduces my creativity on the fly (requests etc.)

Numbers would be really good to know.
How many GB? How many WAV or 320k MP3s?
Five times is telling me absolutely nothing. I don't even know five times of which size we're talking.
So Serato, please talk to us in numbers.

+1 need to know the numbers 5 x what so I can optimize my library based on 5 × the size of scratch live?

My guess is that the 5x number won't help. I say this because my library hasn't changed in size from 1.6 to 1.7 and I didn't have this issue in previous versions of Serato Dj. IMO, there's something wrong with the search feature and it just so happened to come about in the same release in which they increased the library size, but I reality they are two separate issues.

I'm not totally sure of this, but this is my gut feeling.

Exactly why I wanna know numbers, because then I'd delete tracks that I don't really need or didn't play for a long time.
I started building my digital collection in 2003 and am sure there's a lot of music I don't need for every show.
So telling us numbers would help to optimize libraries and have SDJ stable.

Right but what I'm telling you is I didn't have this issue up until 1.7 and my library size hasn't changed. I don't think the search problem is related to library size.

There are no absolute numbers. It depends on...

1. How many tags you have
2. How big the tags are
3. How long the filenames are
4. How long the pathnames are
5. How many crates
Etc. Etc.

Nik, can you confirm that this wasn't an issues in early versions even though it wasn't "large library ready"
versions

1855,sorry,but I dont understand your question... :(

Can you confirm that this wasn't an issue in early versions of Serato Dj. In other words, even though previous versions to 1.7 were not "large library" compatible, that they didn't have this search problem.

As I described above, my library hasn't really changed in size, but yet am inky having this problem in 1.7

Nik, this sounds crazy to me.
So there's really no number, like about 20GB of music or 10.000 tracks or so?

He's right, there's no magic number. It's a combination of number of tracks vs number of crates etc. I'm not so sure about the rest of what he says though (e.g. tags, filenames etc).

serato.com



Since all tags known to SDJ/SL are stored inside the database file, they of course affect the memory print too.

I get that there isn't an absolute number, but maybe you can explain the impact of crates vs tracks. Exactly how the database and indexes is implemented B-tree or something else? Is it a flat file or RDBMS of some sort? Most importantly, it would be great for Serato to at least describe how they tested the search capabilities and can describe what those tests were and the specs of the hardware that those tests were performed on.

I dont get this ...on one hand you guys say there's no number

how did u get to 5 x scratch live library? is this a marketing gimmick? 5 x means someone did some analysis unless if u just threw a number out there?!

i was on serato dj pre- 1.7 and did experience the freezing! Honestly for all the hype that 1.7 came with to this day there is no perfomance improvement that i have personally seen at all :-(

Frankly any software/product has optimum operating criteria ....my car manufacturer tells me my car will do 19 mpg city ...yes it will vary upon my driving but at least there's a number that i can baseline against. Come on guys i know u test serato with some large music databases and u do know some sort of threshold where u begin experiencing issues when testing....please do tell?!!!

We all big boys and girls here and can handle it ? If u tell me optimal conditions are 3,000 tracks i will select 3,000 tracks out of the 120,000 i have to play at a gig - cause i cannot afford a crash

120,000 songs is far from max. I can tell you that when a .CRATE file reached around 10MB, I started getting issues. I created multiple sub-crates and put the subcrates in a crate to solve part of my large library issue even when using SSL 2x. I also do not store COMMENT tags or most other tags.

I could not use any SDJ until 1.7 so I'm a witness there were major performance enhancements for large library. I stayed on SSL 2.5 until now.

The screen freeze during search is a known issue and a real nuisance but if you just wait it out and don't panic, the software won't crash. The screen will eventually refresh.

@DJ Tracy G....u threw out a number what is that based on? Thanks for putting a number... just looking for Serato to firm that up if the number is 60,000 for example I will cut my library...just looking to see what the numbers are so I can optimize my sets

Not sure how much clearer it can be said... "It depends". ;)

Serato confirmed it depends on a number of factors. If you take the same SL library, multiply the size by five, SDJ still deals with it. That's good to know I guess.

Five times the size compared to a SL library sounds big enough for me, right now. But that's also because I keep my files as clean as possible (not more tags than necessary, short pathnames)

K so numbers then...i do tag my comments to make my work flows easier ...it is what it is ...i guess asking for optimal numbers is not an option and no one from serato can say at what numbers they have tested in their labs......i am stuck on serato coz been tagging for years and serato is like a marriage u know is on the rocks but it's going to cost me to get out......i rest my case your honor ...no one seems to get where I am coming from .....FYI I have tested my library with Traktor and virtual dj no issues....and no I am not moving to those serato offers me more besides this issue and I will leave with it as I have done for as long as I can remember....just thought I could get some guidance and there isn't any

I am not sure where your problem is. You said it's working in SL. So move to SDJ - it should work. Unless your library size has grown by the size of at least five ;)

Really the first time I can't do more than laugh.
See this 5 times statement a lot, but nobody knows what's one time?!

Really, nobody wants to know all that bla about tags, crates, whatever.
Just say a number of GB or tracks. It doesn't even have to be correct. I see a lot of factors play a role to calculate that, but better tell a false number that is a bit too smal than keep repeating that 5 times marketing buzz.

Usually I'm very calm and chilled, but this time I really can't. Sorry.

Please, stop being so ignorant. Sorry, but there is NO number of tracks you can simply give out. Because it depends on.. bla bla.

It's like you're going to a groceries and keep on asking: I have $5. How much food can I get for that money? The answer you will be getting: It depends on the kind of food. Fresh. Canned. Quality. Size. Fruits. Meat. Carbs. Bla bla.

There is no simple number.

I had an SL test library with about 80k tracks. It loaded fine. I think it crapped out around 100k. But that number does not help you. Depending on bla bla you might only be able to load 40k tracks, or maybe you can even load 150k tracks.

It depends.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to get.

Wasn't gonna chime in again but could not resist.....@nik39. Love your example at least u gave us a number ($5).....i think serato could give us a number as well just like u did ...here let me try........

SERATO: We have tested our software and it will operate optimally with up to 60,000 tracks and this number may vary based on number of crates tags etc.

USER: Thank you will adjust my library accordingly

Unless the software development cycle has changed there should have been some perfomance/load testing on the software. If numbers can't be thrown out there why was the 5 times thrown out there? Does the 5 times depend on crates tags etc? What if someone has 60,000 tracks on scratch live with no issues does that mean they can move to serato and it will handle 300,000 tracks (60,000 x 5).

Let's not say there is no numbers serato threw out the numbers first and we have the option (not right :-) ) to ask ....

5 TIMES WHAT?????

I guess I should probably start performance testing the software and spend my energy there since this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere ....i will post some numbers and scenarios

Others please chime in may be we can come up with some numbers based on your feedback.

That's exactly how I understand Serato's statement. How else could you interpret it? That's a serious question - no sarcasm.

Serato any word ?????

You can't expect Serato to give you an exact number. 60,000 is not a lot though and Serato can handle 5x that.

I only have 8000 - 9000 tracks, deleted all album covers, and even this "small" library still runs into issues. So I'm out and don't care about that 5 times quote anymore. As long as it's only about glitches and short stops in the GUI and not an audible problem, I'll step off this topic for now. 5 times more problems is all I can see at the moment ;)

Why not give us a number? They must have tested with a specific number of files/crates - give us that number then? they said 5 x (five times ) i did not ask for a number they gave it .....my 60,000 tracks were fine in scratch live but i cant run 100K files in serato without smoothly so something gives.

something else is wrong because 100,000 tracks is not maxing out SDJ....i can attest to it on my crappy laptop.

Did you read anything about what has been said before?

Just want serato to tell us how many files/crates they ran their pefomance/bench marking against? Very simple question and don't get why that's not a rational question.

SERATO: We have tested our software and it will operate optimally with up to XXXX tracks and this number may vary based on number of crates tags etc.

I appreciate everyone trying to answer this question but maybe we should have someone from serato dev/QA/performance test team put this thing to bed....

really….. what part of there is no way to say how many tracks because


and why do you even care? if yours is working no need to worry about it.

but for others it was a long standing issue ---> serato.com

Having the same problem with 1.71…..
Any fix in the near future? Extreme lag when searching… i have about 100k worth of videos and songs on an internal 2TB hdd. Works fine in SSL though

*phew* well i'm glad to know it wasn't just me or my Mac. +1 on fixing the search lag! I went back to 1.6.3 and it works quick and speedy so there's definitely a downgrade for searching tracks with version 1.7.x...

This is why this entire thread is irrelevant. I stated earlier in this thread (at least my experience) that a quantitate figure of how large the library can be is not the issue. There is an issue with the search function in 1.7 period. It just so happens that in this version they listed larger libraries as a feature, but that does not seem to be the issue. The issue is the search function.

I find this extremely amusing:

"Serato DJ 1.7.1 includes two important bug fixes to continue the unparalleled level of stability and performance that Serato software is renowned for

Unable to rename session names in History panel
Sampler Pad mode not working when switching from Hot Cues with Pioneer DDJ-SZ"

I guess the fact that the search function (spining wheel/screen freeze) problem wasn't important. Nor was the fact that Pitch N Time is creating major crashes. Thank goodness they fixed that rename session problem though.

It's really hard to stay loyal to Serato.

Hey DJ1855

We are aware that some users are reporting issues with scrolling through their libraries, but we have been unable to reproduce it so far. This makes it very tricky for us to prioritise as we can't pinpoint what may be happening until we can reproduce it.

We in the support team are gathering as much info as we can to try and narrow down the kind of setup this issue is turning up on. It would be awesome if everyone experiencing this could open a help request at support.serato.com. This will make it easier for us to bring all the reports together.

We had very high volumes of users complaining about not being able to rename their History session. This was 100% reproducible and simple to fix. It was a no-brainer to include the fix for this in 1.7.1. Likewise the Sampler pad mode issue for the DDJ-SZ.

I'm not sure what you mean by sorry. Are you getting crashes related to using Pitch 'n Time?

Cheers
Aaron

I can tell you from first hand experience that Serato Scratch Live (with either a 57 or 62) will crash whenever you attempt to load either virtual deck with a file from a powered firewire WD My Book 4TB external HD. Works fine in Serato Dj though.... FIX THIS SERATO!