subject:"\[libreoffice\-users\] Re\: Base record access unacceptably slow"

Hi :)
Phew.  Good timing!  Have you signed up for steering-discus or do you know the 
time of the call and how to join in?  It's so late where i am that it's 
tomorrow 
already.  

Regards from
Tom :)





From: Tom Cloyd 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Sun, 31 July, 2011 1:40:19
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

On 07/29/2011 06:55 PM, ponsiarceds wrote:
> .
> tomcloyd wrote:
>> , On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
>>
>> Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground
>> here at all.
>>
> FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
> the default Ubuntu one.
> ( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )
>
> It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
> binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
> existing JRE
>
> Overview:
>
> 1. Download the JRE archive (approx. 20 mb)
> 2. Extract in /tmp
> 3. as root, copy the extracted directory to /usr/lib/jvm
> 4. set this JRE as the JRE of choice in LO (Tools>Options>Java)
> 5. Exit LO&  restart
>
> Instructions:
>
> 1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
> x86_64 from
>http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
>R
> JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
> 2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
> /tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
> 3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
> 4. Exit&  restart office.  In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit&
> restart office
> 5. Load you Base file&  compare the speed.
>
> If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in
> Tools>Options>Java&  "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
>http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
>
> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
OK, NOW I'm blown away. I had jdk v.22 (from Ubuntu archives) installed 
as an attempted improvement, and got about a 25% increase in speed. 
Running now with v. 21 Base is unbelievably snappy and crisp. I've NEVER 
had it perform like this for me. THIS is exactly what it needs to be. 
Wy better than v. 22.

So, dammit, what will it take to get this fixed, I'm wondering...? I'll 
follow through with that Steering committee phone call business, but if 
the problem's java, then Oracle has to fix it. Well, this is quite a bit 
above my pay grade.

What a fascinating thread this has been. Thanks to all.

T.
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
t...@tomcloyd.com
(435) 272-3332
St. George/Cedar City, Utah

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread Tom Cloyd

What I like about this idea is that it frees it up to be picked up by 
anyone who wants to take it and run with it, and THAT just might work.


I do fear for what it might do with people who need an integrated solution.

t.
~~
Tom Cloyd / t...@tomcloyd.com / (435) 272-3332

On 07/30/2011 06:41 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)

It might be time to cut Base loose.  Most versions of MS Office don't include
Access.  Gnome Office doesn't have a database program.  Perhaps Office Suites
just don't need an integrated program to do this sort of stuff.  Maybe Calc is
enough.  There are a few alternatives on the market for people that really need
a database.  To move forwards Base needs a serious commitment and a strong
vision of where it wants to get to.  If we cut it loose then LibreOffice as a
whole is freed from a lot of dependencies and stuff that the other apps don't
need.  So, lets just drop Base.


Regards from
Tom :)





From: Andreas Säger
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 9:41:30
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Am 29.07.2011 03:22, NoOp wrote:


Hit F4 in Writer or Calc, right-click>Open the dBase "Bibliography".
All the functionality of a flat (unrelational) dBase connection is
there. You can connect, query, edit data through forms and dump any row
set into office documents.



http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/

For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required.
Java is notably required for Base.





As a matter of fact you can disable/remove Java, hit F4 ... connect,
query, edit and dump.
If I would convert our Java databases and remove Java from our systems
nobody would notice the change.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)

It might be time to cut Base loose.  Most versions of MS Office don't include 
Access.  Gnome Office doesn't have a database program.  Perhaps Office Suites 
just don't need an integrated program to do this sort of stuff.  Maybe Calc is 
enough.  There are a few alternatives on the market for people that really need 
a database.  To move forwards Base needs a serious commitment and a strong 
vision of where it wants to get to.  If we cut it loose then LibreOffice as a 
whole is freed from a lot of dependencies and stuff that the other apps don't 
need.  So, lets just drop Base.  

Regards from
Tom :)

From: Andreas Säger 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 9:41:30
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Am 29.07.2011 03:22, NoOp wrote:

>> Hit F4 in Writer or Calc, right-click>Open the dBase "Bibliography".
>> All the functionality of a flat (unrelational) dBase connection is
>> there. You can connect, query, edit data through forms and dump any row
>> set into office documents.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/
> 
> For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required.
> Java is notably required for Base.
> 
>
>
>

As a matter of fact you can disable/remove Java, hit F4 ... connect, 
query, edit and dump.
If I would convert our Java databases and remove Java from our systems 
nobody would notice the change.
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread Tom Cloyd


On 07/29/2011 06:55 PM, ponsiarceds wrote:

.
tomcloyd wrote:

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground
here at all.


FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
the default Ubuntu one.
( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )

It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
existing JRE

Overview:

1. Download the JRE archive (approx. 20 mb)
2. Extract in /tmp
3. as root, copy the extracted directory to /usr/lib/jvm
4. set this JRE as the JRE of choice in LO (Tools>Options>Java)
5. Exit LO&  restart

Instructions:

1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
x86_64 from
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
/tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
4. Exit&  restart office.  In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit&
restart office
5. Load you Base file&  compare the speed.

If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in
Tools>Options>Java&  "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/


--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

OK, NOW I'm blown away. I had jdk v.22 (from Ubuntu archives) installed 
as an attempted improvement, and got about a 25% increase in speed. 
Running now with v. 21 Base is unbelievably snappy and crisp. I've NEVER 
had it perform like this for me. THIS is exactly what it needs to be. 
Wy better than v. 22.


So, dammit, what will it take to get this fixed, I'm wondering...? I'll 
follow through with that Steering committee phone call business, but if 
the problem's java, then Oracle has to fix it. Well, this is quite a bit 
above my pay grade.


What a fascinating thread this has been. Thanks to all.

T.
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
t...@tomcloyd.com
(435) 272-3332
St. George/Cedar City, Utah

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)
The main thing is that you found a way to solve your current problem.  
Congrats and regards from
Tom :)





From: Tom Cloyd 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Sat, 30 July, 2011 18:51:02
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

I may have seen this too late to join in, but I'll make the next one for sure. 
Thanks very much for the tip.

I agree with Tom, too, in theory. The problem is that my resource account is 
already overdrawn. I have nothing left with which to make a heavy investment, 
anywhere. If it's just a matter of joining a call, well, I can do that, and 
I'll 
have no problem with articulating my concerns re: Base.

T.
~~
Tom Cloyd / t...@tomcloyd.com / (435) 272-3332

On 07/30/2011 03:25 AM, David Nelson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Tom Davies  wrote:
>> I think it's more a case of working on several fronts within TDF.
>> 1.   joining the Steering-Discuss mailing list and promoting the cause there.
> Tom's right. I can definitely recommend taking time out to join the
> SC's twice-weekly call conferences and raising the issue there. At all
> the confcalls I've attended, there has almost never been a member of
> the user community there to raise questions, yet that was one of the
> central things that the confcalls were designed to cater to. The SC
> people are very approachable and eager to listen to people, so you
> will find interested ears. You can participate in the calls via phone
> or Skype (Skype has always worked for me). Details are here:
> 
>http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Dial-in_Details
>s
> 
> Like you guys, I'm very keen to see Base well-maintained. There's a
> confcall today, Saturday, July 30, and I'll raise the question. If
> others do the same, it will add weight to the issue...
> 


-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread Jean-Francois Nifenecker


Le 29/07/2011 10:41, Andreas Säger a écrit :


As a matter of fact you can disable/remove Java, hit F4 ... connect,
query, edit and dump.
If I would convert our Java databases and remove Java from our systems
nobody would notice the change.


Could you elaborate, please?

If I remove Java, can I open the Base module and create a query in 
design mode? I happen to think I can't but I might be mistaken.


--
Jean-Francois Nifenecker, Bordeaux

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread Don C. Myers

One thing to be careful of. You can use either the jre or the jdk. The
jdk is basically for developers and not needed by most folks. Make sure
when you follow the instructions below you use one or the other.

On 07/29/2011 08:55 PM, ponsiarceds wrote:

.
tomcloyd wrote:

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground
here at all.

FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
the default Ubuntu one.
( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )

It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
existing JRE

Overview:

Instructions:

1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
x86_64 from
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
/tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
4. Exit& restart office. In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit&
restart office
5. Load you Base file& compare the speed.

If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in
Tools>Options>Java& "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

***
*

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread Tom Cloyd

I may have seen this too late to join in, but I'll make the next one for 
sure. Thanks very much for the tip.


I agree with Tom, too, in theory. The problem is that my resource 
account is already overdrawn. I have nothing left with which to make a 
heavy investment, anywhere. If it's just a matter of joining a call, 
well, I can do that, and I'll have no problem with articulating my 
concerns re: Base.


T.
~~
Tom Cloyd / t...@tomcloyd.com / (435) 272-3332

On 07/30/2011 03:25 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Tom Davies  wrote:

I think it's more a case of working on several fronts within TDF.
1.   joining the Steering-Discuss mailing list and promoting the cause there.

Tom's right. I can definitely recommend taking time out to join the
SC's twice-weekly call conferences and raising the issue there. At all
the confcalls I've attended, there has almost never been a member of
the user community there to raise questions, yet that was one of the
central things that the confcalls were designed to cater to. The SC
people are very approachable and eager to listen to people, so you
will find interested ears. You can participate in the calls via phone
or Skype (Skype has always worked for me). Details are here:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Dial-in_Details

Like you guys, I'm very keen to see Base well-maintained. There's a
confcall today, Saturday, July 30, and I'll raise the question. If
others do the same, it will add weight to the issue...




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread Don C. Myers

Magnificent!!! Thank you, ponsiarceds! I followed your 
instructions for having an older version of Java along side the present 
one. I'm running Ubuntu 11.04 with the LibreOffice version of 3.4.1. Now 
base works really fast like it always did. Then only thing I did 
differently was I used the 1.6.0_22 version since I knew it worked well.


Thank you again so much!

On 07/29/2011 08:55 PM, ponsiarceds wrote:

sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm


--

***
*


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)
+1
I'm sure the documentation team would appreciate your input on building up a 
guide for Base.  It's a major challenge tho!
Regards from
Tom :)




From: planas 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Sat, 30 July, 2011 2:30:00
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 17:55 -0700, ponsiarceds wrote: 

> .
> tomcloyd wrote:
> > 
> > , On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> > 
> > Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
> > here at all.
> > 
> 
> FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
> the default Ubuntu one.
> ( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )
> 
> It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
> binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
> existing JRE
> 
> Overview:
> 
> 1. Download the JRE archive (approx. 20 mb)
> 2. Extract in /tmp
> 3. as root, copy the extracted directory to /usr/lib/jvm
> 4. set this JRE as the JRE of choice in LO (Tools>Options>Java)
> 5. Exit LO & restart
> 
> Instructions:
> 
> 1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
> x86_64 from 
>http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
>R
> JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
> 2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
> /tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
> 3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
> 4. Exit & restart office.  In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit &
> restart office
> 5. Load you Base file & compare the speed.
> 
> If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in 
> Tools>Options>Java & "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
>http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
>
> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 

Thank you for the step by step instructions, I am sure many will find
them useful

-- 
Jay Lozier
jsloz...@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-30 Thread David Nelson

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Tom Davies  wrote:
> I think it's more a case of working on several fronts within TDF.
> 1.   joining the Steering-Discuss mailing list and promoting the cause there.

Tom's right. I can definitely recommend taking time out to join the
SC's twice-weekly call conferences and raising the issue there. At all
the confcalls I've attended, there has almost never been a member of
the user community there to raise questions, yet that was one of the
central things that the confcalls were designed to cater to. The SC
people are very approachable and eager to listen to people, so you
will find interested ears. You can participate in the calls via phone
or Skype (Skype has always worked for me). Details are here:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Dial-in_Details

Like you guys, I'm very keen to see Base well-maintained. There's a
confcall today, Saturday, July 30, and I'll raise the question. If
others do the same, it will add weight to the issue...

-- 
David Nelson

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread Tom Cloyd

I'll chime in - thanks indeed. I just removed my current sun-java, and
installed

sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb and
sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_all.deb

Everything seems to run fine. However, the increase in Base/HYPERSQL
speed is only about 25%. Disappointing. This still isn't a good solution.

I'll restore fully updated sun-java, then follow your instructions, as a
temporary fix.

Meanwhile, I working on a solution is not dependent upon a graphical db
at all, using a more primitive approach which I recently used for an
in-memory entity-relationship db/DSL I wrote about a year ago: I write
db output not to an interactive programmed GUI, but to a set of files
which lie open in the jEdit programmers editor. As soon as an output
file is updated (rewritten), jEdit reloads it, so it's available for me
to peruse. I can have far more files open for ready viewing than I can
screens.

If I need to write into something, I use the DSL to say what, and I get
an open file labeled fields, into which I write, or edit, if I'm making
a correction. Returning to the command line, I indicate the file is read
to be read (since I just saved and closed it) and the program receives
the input.

I'll grant you that this is primitive, but it works right well, is far
more flexible, allows me to use my Ruby skills (such as they are), and
frees me from dependance upon someone else's GUI. Why don't I write my
own? I don't have that skill, nor the time to acquire it. I like
"simple", not "shiny", and I just need information, not colors on the
screen, which this surely gives me. And, it can be used with any db engine.

So...that's where I'm going with my db needs. I just cannot afford to
get further invested in the sink-hole that Base is looking like, much as
I really do like the interface, etc. It's too slow, I might be able to
figure out how to have two subforms, but why not TWELVE? With my
approach, no problem.

Something from my library of quotes:

"The most important rule in our development is always to do the simplest
thing that could possibly work. ...Simplicity is the most important
contributor to the ability to make rapid progress." < http://
www.xprogramming.com/Practices/PracSimplest.html >

~~
Tom Cloyd / t...@tomcloyd.com / (435) 272-3332

On 07/29/2011 06:55 PM, ponsiarceds wrote:

.
tomcloyd wrote:

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground
here at all.

FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
the default Ubuntu one.
( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )

It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
existing JRE

Overview:

Instructions:

If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in
Tools>Options>Java& "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread jorge

Hi

Thanks you for this tips and to all for Base and data bases tips !

Regards,

Jorge Rodríguez






El vie, 29-07-2011 a las 17:55 -0700, ponsiarceds escribió:
> .
> tomcloyd wrote:
> > 
> > , On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> > 
> > Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
> > here at all.
> > 
> 
> FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
> the default Ubuntu one.
> ( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )
> 
> It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
> binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
> existing JRE
> 
> Overview:
> 
> 1. Download the JRE archive (approx. 20 mb)
> 2. Extract in /tmp
> 3. as root, copy the extracted directory to /usr/lib/jvm
> 4. set this JRE as the JRE of choice in LO (Tools>Options>Java)
> 5. Exit LO & restart
> 
> Instructions:
> 
> 1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
> x86_64 from 
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
> JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
> 2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
> /tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
> 3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
> 4. Exit & restart office.  In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit &
> restart office
> 5. Load you Base file & compare the speed.
> 
> If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in 
> Tools>Options>Java & "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 

-- 
Atentamente,

Jorge Rodríguez


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread planas

Hi

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 17:55 -0700, ponsiarceds wrote: 

> .
> tomcloyd wrote:
> > 
> > , On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> > 
> > Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
> > here at all.
> > 
> 
> FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
> the default Ubuntu one.
> ( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )
> 
> It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
> binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
> existing JRE
> 
> Overview:
> 
> 1. Download the JRE archive (approx. 20 mb)
> 2. Extract in /tmp
> 3. as root, copy the extracted directory to /usr/lib/jvm
> 4. set this JRE as the JRE of choice in LO (Tools>Options>Java)
> 5. Exit LO & restart
> 
> Instructions:
> 
> 1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
> x86_64 from 
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
> JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
> 2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
> /tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
> 3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
> 4. Exit & restart office.  In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit &
> restart office
> 5. Load you Base file & compare the speed.
> 
> If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in 
> Tools>Options>Java & "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
> Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 

Thank you for the step by step instructions, I am sure many will find
them useful

-- 
Jay Lozier
jsloz...@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread ponsiarceds

.
tomcloyd wrote:
> 
> , On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> 
> Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
> here at all.
> 

FWIW, here is a relatively painless way to install an older JRE along side
the default Ubuntu one.
( I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 64bit )

It definitely sped up my Base table browsing, but then I don't have any
binaries embedded in my tables. It has the bonus of not messing with the
existing JRE

Overview:

1. Download the JRE archive (approx. 20 mb)
2. Extract in /tmp
3. as root, copy the extracted directory to /usr/lib/jvm
4. set this JRE as the JRE of choice in LO (Tools>Options>Java)
5. Exit LO & restart

Instructions:

1.Download jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin (for i386) or jdk-6u21-linux-x64.bin for
x86_64 from 
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u21-b07-oth-JPR
JRE archive at ORACLE . Save to /tmp
2.run it using: "sh jdk-6u21-linux-i586.bin" . The JRE is now extracted to
/tmp/jre1.6.0_21/
3. copy to /usr/lib/jvm "sudo cp -a jre1.6.0_21/ /usr/lib/jvm"
4. Exit & restart office.  In Tools>Options>Java, choose 1.6.0_21. Exit &
restart office
5. Load you Base file & compare the speed.

If you want to remove it simply set the JRE back to the old one in 
Tools>Options>Java & "sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.6.0_21/

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Base-record-access-unacceptably-slow-tp3202820p3211034.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread planas

Hi All,

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 10:27 +0100, Tom Davies wrote: 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Cor Nouws 
> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 20:47:59
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Tom Cloyd wrote (28-07-11 18:06)
> 
> > I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF
> > recognizes this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.
> 
> Well, the challenges with base are known. This does not mean that there is an 
> instant solution. However the fast growing support for TDF and from 
> interested 
> people with developing skills, make that there are reasons for some optimism 
> :-)
> Maybe the LibreOffice conference or another hackers event is a good 
> opportunity 
> too to make so first steps,  share experience ...
> 
> Regards,
> Cor
> 
> 
> Hi :)
> If that was going to be enough then we would already have seen some efforts 
> made 
> in Base in the last 11 months just as we have seen efforts and even good 
> results 
> in all the other apps.  Waiting and hoping is getting nowhere.  It is also 
> not a 
> good management strategy.  
> 
> Regards from
> Tom :)
> 

On the subject of databases, is there a good back end that could be used
and our code is only a front end for MySQL, SQLlite, etc. My idea is
most office users want a friendlier interface that hides many of the
details of database operation (it develops the actual query) and allows
relatively easy design, report generation, and data entry. 

I have been playing around with MariaDB/MySQL with MySQL-Workbench as
the GUI. This is probably more advanced than most office users would
need but is has some good ideas for graphical database design.

-- 
Jay Lozier
jsloz...@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread NoOp

On 07/29/2011 01:41 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:
> Am 29.07.2011 03:22, NoOp wrote:
> 
>>> Hit F4 in Writer or Calc, right-click>Open the dBase "Bibliography".
>>> All the functionality of a flat (unrelational) dBase connection is
>>> there. You can connect, query, edit data through forms and dump any row
>>> set into office documents.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/
>> 
>> For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required.
>> Java is notably required for Base.
>> 
>>
>>
>>
> 
> As a matter of fact you can disable/remove Java, hit F4 ... connect, 
> query, edit and dump.
> If I would convert our Java databases and remove Java from our systems 
> nobody would notice the change.

Interesting. Thanks for the info/confirmation.



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 29.07.2011 03:22, NoOp wrote:


Hit F4 in Writer or Calc, right-click>Open the dBase "Bibliography".
All the functionality of a flat (unrelational) dBase connection is
there. You can connect, query, edit data through forms and dump any row
set into office documents.




http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/

For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required.
Java is notably required for Base.






As a matter of fact you can disable/remove Java, hit F4 ... connect, 
query, edit and dump.
If I would convert our Java databases and remove Java from our systems 
nobody would notice the change.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 29.07.2011 13:42, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
Could that community be prevailed upon to join TDF and manage the Base part of
the project?  Presumably they have knowledge of key players and have a good idea
of what needs to be done to improve Base?
Regards from
Tom :)



Be assured that those guys did their very best to assist the OOo 
developers at Sun/Oracle with user support, bug hunting, documentation 
and moderate (doable) feature requests. Now those days are over.


As a heavy Base user I would be very pleased to see a functional, 
standard compliant, actively maintained, one-way data import facility in 
LibreOffice. This would require a tiny fraction of the current code 
without any Java dependency at all.


No more database development in this office suite. No more office users 
overstrained by abstract data models. Simply connect, query and link 
already existing, well formed databases to document fields as it always 
used to work since the first version of OOo. This is how the majority of 
office users uses Base when they create serial letters without even 
noticing the .odb file on their disk (well, until they delete it ...).


Like in OOo 1.x, the "Base document" should be a simple registration 
entry with connection info and some SELECT strings because the "embedded 
database document" failed completely, drowning gigabytes of user data in 
binary swamps.


Andreas Säger


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread Tom Davies

Hi :)
Could that community be prevailed upon to join TDF and manage the Base part of 
the project?  Presumably they have knowledge of key players and have a good 
idea 
of what needs to be done to improve Base?
Regards from
Tom :)

From: Andreas Säger 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 11:30:16
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Am 28.07.2011 08:30, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> As an aside, have you thoughts to share about HSQLDB vs H2? Any good
> reason to migrate to H2 (a question entirely separate from the db speed
> question). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you have time to
> share them.
> 

The tiny user community of the Base component gathers on 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php and 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewforum.phtml?f=10.

Have a walk through 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=83 and 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=100.

Read contributions by most valued member "DACM". He knows "everything" about 
embedded HSQLDB, why not to use it, how to transform it to something useful.
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=94068 [How to: Migrate Base 
Projects to Multi-User]
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=97522 [Replace HSQLDB with H2 
embedded multi-user]
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=17567&p=162653#p162653
 [[Tutorial] Avoid data loss by avoiding "Embedded databases"]

Both database engines are just great, even for people who do not intend to 
write 
their own Java application around these animals.
For my last tiny project I prefered HSQLDB v2 simply because I already had 
working drafts in embedded HSQLDB v1.8.

I tried H2 when HSQLDB v2 was not released and I had to do some analysis work 
on 
half a million interrelated records from 2 databases. The single-user local DB 
simply worked out of the box, just like HSQLDB 1.8 did with less features. I 
copied dBase and csv data into the prepared database structure, added queries, 
some macros and dumped the final aggregations in Calc's pivot tables.

Replacing one excellent database backend with another excellent database 
backend 
makes no sense. The "database in a single zip archive" (the so called "Base 
document") is the major trouble maker which makes up a slow, inflexible, 
unsafe, 
insecure caricature of a database while the advantage is close to zero.

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 28.07.2011 08:30, Tom Cloyd wrote:

As an aside, have you thoughts to share about HSQLDB vs H2? Any good
reason to migrate to H2 (a question entirely separate from the db speed
question). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you have time to
share them.



The tiny user community of the Base component gathers on 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php and 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewforum.phtml?f=10.


Have a walk through 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=83 and 
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=100.


Read contributions by most valued member "DACM". He knows "everything" 
about embedded HSQLDB, why not to use it, how to transform it to 
something useful.
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=94068 [How to: Migrate 
Base Projects to Multi-User]
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=97522 [Replace HSQLDB 
with H2 embedded multi-user]
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=17567&p=162653#p162653 
[[Tutorial] Avoid data loss by avoiding "Embedded databases"]


Both database engines are just great, even for people who do not intend 
to write their own Java application around these animals.
For my last tiny project I prefered HSQLDB v2 simply because I already 
had working drafts in embedded HSQLDB v1.8.


I tried H2 when HSQLDB v2 was not released and I had to do some analysis 
work on half a million interrelated records from 2 databases. The 
single-user local DB simply worked out of the box, just like HSQLDB 1.8 
did with less features. I copied dBase and csv data into the prepared 
database structure, added queries, some macros and dumped the final 
aggregations in Calc's pivot tables.


Replacing one excellent database backend with another excellent database 
backend makes no sense. The "database in a single zip archive" (the so 
called "Base document") is the major trouble maker which makes up a 
slow, inflexible, unsafe, insecure caricature of a database while the 
advantage is close to zero.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-29 Thread Tom Davies

From: Cor Nouws 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 20:47:59
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi Tom,

Tom Cloyd wrote (28-07-11 18:06)

> I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF
> recognizes this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.

Well, the challenges with base are known. This does not mean that there is an 
instant solution. However the fast growing support for TDF and from interested 
people with developing skills, make that there are reasons for some optimism :-)
Maybe the LibreOffice conference or another hackers event is a good opportunity 
too to make so first steps,  share experience ...

Regards,
Cor

Hi :)
If that was going to be enough then we would already have seen some efforts 
made 
in Base in the last 11 months just as we have seen efforts and even good 
results 
in all the other apps.  Waiting and hoping is getting nowhere.  It is also not 
a 
good management strategy.  

Regards from
Tom :)

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread NoOp

On 07/28/2011 12:50 PM, Andreas Säger wrote:
> Am 28.07.2011 19:05, Jean-Francois Nifenecker wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le 28/07/2011 18:10, Heinrich Stoellinger a écrit :
>>> In my view LO/OO do NOT require Java, neither on Linux nor on Windows.
>>
>> AFAIK, LO/OOo currently *DO* require Java for Base to simply work. TDF
>> have announced they would get rid of the java-isms in the code. This
>> implies a major rewrite of Base, though.
>>
> 
> No, this is not true. You can use any non-Java database in OOo. You can 
> build queries and forms manually in design view, and you can use 
> external document templates for reporting. Both built-in report 
> generators use Java. IMHO Calc outperforms both report generators anyway.
> 
> Hit F4 in Writer or Calc, right-click>Open the dBase "Bibliography".
> All the functionality of a flat (unrelational) dBase connection is 
> there. You can connect, query, edit data through forms and dump any row 
> set into office documents.
> 
> 

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/

For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required.
Java is notably required for Base.




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 28.07.2011 19:05, Jean-Francois Nifenecker wrote:

Hi,

Le 28/07/2011 18:10, Heinrich Stoellinger a écrit :

In my view LO/OO do NOT require Java, neither on Linux nor on Windows.


AFAIK, LO/OOo currently *DO* require Java for Base to simply work. TDF
have announced they would get rid of the java-isms in the code. This
implies a major rewrite of Base, though.



No, this is not true. You can use any non-Java database in OOo. You can 
build queries and forms manually in design view, and you can use 
external document templates for reporting. Both built-in report 
generators use Java. IMHO Calc outperforms both report generators anyway.


Hit F4 in Writer or Calc, right-click>Open the dBase "Bibliography".
All the functionality of a flat (unrelational) dBase connection is 
there. You can connect, query, edit data through forms and dump any row 
set into office documents.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Cor Nouws


Hi Tom,

Tom Cloyd wrote (28-07-11 18:06)


I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF
recognizes this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.


Well, the challenges with base are known. This does not mean that there 
is an instant solution. However the fast growing support for TDF and 
from interested people with developing skills, make that there are 
reasons for some optimism :-)
Maybe the LibreOffice conference or another hackers event is a good 
opportunity too to make so first steps,  share experience ...


Regards,
Cor

--
 - Cor
 - http://nl.libreoffice.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread planas

Heinrich,

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 08:15 +0200, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote: 

> Hi Tom,
> Just my - maybe naive - 2 pennies worth of comments:
> As I mentioned before, I have been using OO/LO for years together with
> BASE with MySQL (which - also "sigh") now "belongs" to Oracle as well.
> As a connector to the DB I have tried out the Java version (always had
> trouble with it one way or the other!) as well as ODBC/UNIXODBC (which
> is what I am now using under Linux and which works sort of!). With
> MySQL there is also the native connector which I would actually prefer
> to use - but, yes you guess right - does NOT work on either LO 3.3.3 or
> 3.4.1 under Linux. A bit confusing, isn't it!
> I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
> business...
> Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
> Regards
> H


MariaDB is an OSS fork of MySQL, it is available from the Ubuntu
repositories, I assume Debian and other Linux distros.

It apparently is only available for Linux and Windows, no Mac version
listed on their downloads. Their homepage is > mariadb.org



> 
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:19:26 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, Andreas.
> >
> > To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install
> > sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing, then
> > direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is reported, does
> > not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).
> >
> > Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I get
> > back to work, later today
> >
> > The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the problem
> > being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest sun-java
> > updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource dbs out of
> > the water?
> >
> > Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that is
> > now associated with Oracle?
> >
> > Sigh.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:
> >> The Base documentation:
> >> http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial
> >>
> >>
> >> My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java
> >> version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:
> >> http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> 



-- 
Jay Lozier
jsloz...@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)
It might be a good idea to post a bug-report
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
I think the guide helps you look-up to see if there is already a bug-report 
about it but if you don't have time for that just post the reoprt and worry 
about it later.  Triagers can mark bugs as duplicates quite quickly when they 
are on a roll.  

Regards from
Tom :)





From: Paul D. Mirowsky 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:45:05
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Has anybody suggested that this command should an option when saving when ever 
records are deleted?

On 7/27/2011 12:14 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> SHUTDOWN COMPACT

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)

Apache are far behind TDF in this.  They are about where TDF was about 11 
months 
ago; with no infrastructure and bloated code filled with nonsense entangling 
the  
useful stuff.

TDF is not  traditional hierarchical organisation where "they" run things and 
"we" wait for "them" to do stuff.  There is no "them" and "us" there is only 
"us" and "some more of us".  We need some of us that have experience and 
knowledge about databases to join in with management levels by joining 
Steering-Discuss and finding ways to manage a drive forwards for Base.  We need 
to manage this not sit&wait.  

Regards from
Tom :)

From: Andy Brown 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:57:32
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Tom Cloyd wrote:

< much clipped to save space >

> 2. If LO's in trouble with the current sun-Java, so's OO. Where's Apache
> in this situation? Again, where's *TDF*? Why aren't they and Apache
> working together on this? Looks rather like a leadership problem, to me.
> 

Tom,  the other points I can not speak to but Apache does not have the code to 
work with yet.  There are people working on getting it so that work can get 
started.  Base is one of the problem areas that I plan to help work on, maybe a 
move to another DB engine is the answer.

As side note: There are sections on the two forums for base tutorials.

[1] http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=83
[2] http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewforum.phtml?f=10

I am no expert on Base so can not say how much the links will help but 
hopefully 
they will help some.

Andy

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Alexander Thurgood

Le 28/07/11 18:22, Tom Cloyd a écrit :

Hi Tom,


> Where the &^%$ is the management - The Document Foundation - in all
> this, right now, today? Do they even watch this list? In short, do they
> give a damn that the only theoretically viable alternative to Access
> (for ordinary users) is in real trouble? Why aren't they showing up here
> with some clarifying position statement?

Been there, seen it, done that. The clarifying statements of opinion I
have had from the developers - they are after the all the ones that
write the code, either as volunteers and/or paid employees, are those
that Michael Meeks has expressed (albeit in other words). If you, as a
user, want Base to be actively supported, corrected, developed...then
sign up to a commercial support contract where your concerns will be
taken as a business case user by that support company, be it Novell,
Suse, Redhat, Lanedo, or whoever else might be in that loop. I would
actually probably pay for support if I knew that it would go towards
fixing the things I want fixed in Base. However, the support contracts
being offered are, to my knowledge, general support for the whole of the
suite, not specifically oriented to Base as such, in fact some of them
are even more general than that, i.e OS-support based, and some of them
are rather pricy. Again, price would probably not be an issue if I was
guaranteed that the money would go to paying someone to develop on Base.


History calls :
If one looks back to how the current HSQLDB came to be in Base, this was
only due to the fact that Sun helped pay Fred Toussi (the guy who
developed HSQLDB) to help them integrate it into OOo - otherwise it was
a non-starter. Fred also had donations from the community to help get
the work done.

So there you go, even back then, Base would not have become what it is
today without independent funding of development. Perhaps, a new set of
funding is indeed what is required to bring about changes in Base as it
is now, and develop for the future.


> 
> I'm desperate for time, a fix, and vision of a long-term solution to
> this mess. I have work to do today, a lot of it, and I can't do it. I
> can't solve the problem, and other than by implementing the
> regress-your-java solution idea (which I have yet to be successful
> with). No one else is solving it, either. For some, migrating to another
> backend is not a challenge. For the rest of us, it's unknown territory.
> I researched this a bit, and while there certainly IS stuff out there
> about how to do it, there's not a lot, and there are multiple levels of
> challenge with this solution anyway.

Well, I jumped onto the mysql bandwagon very early on, before Base 2
even came into being. As Heinz has said ODBC worked fairly well even
back then and it was lightning fast. Unfortunately, things are not going
so smoothly with that solution for me now on OSX, where I can't get it
to work, even with a commercial paid-up ODBC driver.

Sun also came along and developed the mysql connector extension. This
actually still works fairly well for me, but none of the developers are
building it and making it available on the extensions site, which is
what Sun used to do each time a new version of OOo was released. There
has not been one single release of the connector extension by the
LibreOffice project since its inception. After enquiring over at the
Apache OOo project, the mysql is not part of the software grant from
Oracle, and so because the libmysql library is GPL code, it can't be
included in the Apache repositories and therefore the connector
extension will not be built and hosted by the Apache project. In other
words, unless someone else independently and repeatedly builds andhosts
the connector for each new version of OOo/LibO that comes out, and for
each platform, even the native mysql connector is doomed.

The other alternative to MyODBC or the native connector : JDBC
Connector, but again, this is not without several major problems,
including performance from within LibO, and date string management, and
blob and object management and, and...all of which are problems that
mysql (now Oracle) were aware of and never bothered to fix.

Anyway, other avenues are out there, I am exploring them as I speak,
because I'm not going to keep flogging a dead horse for much longer. If
it can be shown that its not actually dead, then I'm all for helping out
testing, documenting, etc, but if TDF itself is not prepared to clearly
show that this module is one of its centres and remain true to its
declaration of "protecting the investments of the past 10 years", I'm at
a loss to see what difference my willingness will make.


Alex





-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list wil

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Once again I find myself agreeing with you, on all fronts. I'm also 
keenly aware that I'm maxed out right now and must first get my db 
running (via java regression) then get some work done. Hours I don't 
have have been lost this morning trying to decide what to do about all 
this, and I must get something moving forward, immediately.


Will return.

Tom C

On 07/28/2011 12:02 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
I think it's more a case of working on several fronts within TDF.
1.   joining the Steering-Discuss mailing list and promoting the cause there.
2.   working out a few large organisations that could put resources towards it.
What would they gain?  Canonical (of Ubuntu fame) and RedHat might reduce a
"blocker" that stops people from leaving Windows.  Google migth gain an
OpenSource database that they could adapt to add to their Cloud initiative,
Google-Docs.  All three would increase the level of support they could sell to
companies and perhaps even to individuals.  Support contracts are one of the
main money spinners in OpenSource.

3.  find places where devs are.  Preferably ones that are familiar with working
on database issues and see if we can encourage some to work on Base.  But they
would have to be happy about releasing the code under copy-left rather than
copyright agreements to keep things OpenSource.  There might be other OpenSource
programs that rely on Base in some way that might be willing to encourage some
of their devs to take the opportunity to steer things in a useful direction for
their needs.


Errr, some of these ideas might be daft and i am very likely missing some other
positive directions.  As for the press it's better if outsiders see TDF in a
positive light so that people are attracted to the quagmire that is Base and
pleased to join in and fix it.
Regards from
Tom :)







From: Tom Cloyd
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 18:16:57
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

I'm up for it! (Love that quote!)

Maybe leaking this issue to the press would get some attention??

Tom C.

On 07/28/2011 10:29 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
I agree too but i think we have to agitate to get something done.  So far the
only response i got was an unhelpful RMS quote.  I have a Gandhi one  "First
they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.".
Which means we have all 4 steps to work through but since some fairly major
companies would benefit it might be possible to get through most of those

steps

quite fast.


Could TDF join
http://montyprogram.com/commercial/
Would that help?

TDF is not the type of organisation where we wait to see what "they" do.  It's
up to us to work out what we need and from who and go get it.
Regards from
Tom :)




From: Tom Cloyd
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:06:15
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Heinz,

I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF

recognizes

this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.

Tom

On 07/28/2011 05:08 AM, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

Hallo Andreas,
In my view, BASE "falling apart" would mean LO's "death sentence" in the long
run! Anybody in even the simplest business environment will want to write
documents based on data stored in business-critical databases (and I think I
am right in assumung that relational DBs have been the standard now for
decades!).
Does anybody REALLY think that a package like LO can survive if it ignores
such an important sector of users? I sure don't!!!
Gruesse aus Salzburg
Heinz


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0200, Andreas Säger

wrote:

Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H


Dear Heinrich,

Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related.
The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge
and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere
gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals
will notice the severe loss.

Grüße aus NRW,
Andreas



-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/

Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted





--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.document

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)
I think it's more a case of working on several fronts within TDF.  
1.   joining the Steering-Discuss mailing list and promoting the cause there.  
2.   working out a few large organisations that could put resources towards it. 

What would they gain?  Canonical (of Ubuntu fame) and RedHat might reduce a 
"blocker" that stops people from leaving Windows.  Google migth gain an 
OpenSource database that they could adapt to add to their Cloud initiative, 
Google-Docs.  All three would increase the level of support they could sell to 
companies and perhaps even to individuals.  Support contracts are one of the 
main money spinners in OpenSource.  

3.  find places where devs are.  Preferably ones that are familiar with working 
on database issues and see if we can encourage some to work on Base.  But they 
would have to be happy about releasing the code under copy-left rather than 
copyright agreements to keep things OpenSource.  There might be other 
OpenSource 
programs that rely on Base in some way that might be willing to encourage some 
of their devs to take the opportunity to steer things in a useful direction for 
their needs.  

Errr, some of these ideas might be daft and i am very likely missing some other 
positive directions.  As for the press it's better if outsiders see TDF in a 
positive light so that people are attracted to the quagmire that is Base and 
pleased to join in and fix it.
Regards from
Tom :)

From: Tom Cloyd 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 18:16:57
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

I'm up for it! (Love that quote!)

Maybe leaking this issue to the press would get some attention??

Tom C.

On 07/28/2011 10:29 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> I agree too but i think we have to agitate to get something done.  So far the
> only response i got was an unhelpful RMS quote.  I have a Gandhi one  "First
> they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.".
> Which means we have all 4 steps to work through but since some fairly major
> companies would benefit it might be possible to get through most of those 
steps
> quite fast.
>
>
> Could TDF join
> http://montyprogram.com/commercial/
> Would that help?
>
> TDF is not the type of organisation where we wait to see what "they" do.  It's
> up to us to work out what we need and from who and go get it.
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
> ____
> From: Tom Cloyd
> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:06:15
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow
>
> Heinz,
>
> I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF 
recognizes
> this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.
>
> Tom
>
> On 07/28/2011 05:08 AM, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:
>> Hallo Andreas,
>> In my view, BASE "falling apart" would mean LO's "death sentence" in the long
>> run! Anybody in even the simplest business environment will want to write
>> documents based on data stored in business-critical databases (and I think I
>> am right in assumung that relational DBs have been the standard now for
>> decades!).
>> Does anybody REALLY think that a package like LO can survive if it ignores
>> such an important sector of users? I sure don't!!!
>> Gruesse aus Salzburg
>> Heinz
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0200, Andreas Säger
> wrote:
>>> Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:
>>>> I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
>>>> business...
>>>> Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
>>>> Regards
>>>> H
>>>>
>>> Dear Heinrich,
>>>
>>> Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related.
>>> The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge
>>> and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere
>>> gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals
>>> will notice the severe loss.
>>>
>>> Grüße aus NRW,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems? 
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

-- 
Unsubscribe ins

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


I'm up for it! (Love that quote!)

Maybe leaking this issue to the press would get some attention??

Tom C.

On 07/28/2011 10:29 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
I agree too but i think we have to agitate to get something done.  So far the
only response i got was an unhelpful RMS quote.  I have a Gandhi one  "First
they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.".
Which means we have all 4 steps to work through but since some fairly major
companies would benefit it might be possible to get through most of those steps
quite fast.


Could TDF join
http://montyprogram.com/commercial/
Would that help?

TDF is not the type of organisation where we wait to see what "they" do.  It's
up to us to work out what we need and from who and go get it.
Regards from
Tom :)




From: Tom Cloyd
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:06:15
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Heinz,

I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF recognizes
this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.

Tom

On 07/28/2011 05:08 AM, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

Hallo Andreas,
In my view, BASE "falling apart" would mean LO's "death sentence" in the long
run! Anybody in even the simplest business environment will want to write
documents based on data stored in business-critical databases (and I think I
am right in assumung that relational DBs have been the standard now for
decades!).
Does anybody REALLY think that a package like LO can survive if it ignores
such an important sector of users? I sure don't!!!
Gruesse aus Salzburg
Heinz


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0200, Andreas Säger

wrote:

Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H


Dear Heinrich,

Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related.
The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge
and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere
gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals
will notice the severe loss.

Grüße aus NRW,
Andreas






-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Don C. Myers


Hi Tom,

Thank you for your great ideas and suggestions.

Starting with Java 1.6.0_24, this problem arose with both OpenOffice 
Base and LibreOffice Base. The problems were documented on an OpenOffice 
forum that I searched when the problem first arose. Another alternative 
would be for LibreOffice to have its own embedded version of Java that 
works instead of using the system Java. One person a month or so ago 
posted here as to the exact reason the issue has happened. He felt the 
problem would be corrected when Java was again updated. I was greatly 
disappointed when 1.6.0_26 came out and the issue was still here. My 
data base has about 2500 entries with complete contact information, and 
then a separate text area I use to keep a running record of my contacts 
with each person. Before Java 1.6.0_24 going from the first record to 
last last record was almost instantaneous. Now if is painful. I wait 
patiently for the 20 to 25 seconds for it to happen on my fastest 
computer, a quad core AMD 910 with 8 gigs of ram. It is slower on my 
other ones. Then paging backwards through the database, I can click 5 
records and each one appears instantly, then before the 6th record there 
is a pause. This happens consistently. 5 records, pause, 5 records, 
pause. I need a database. I need one that works proficiently in Linux. I 
was so glad when Base was added to OpenOffice. I used it for years 
without issue until about 6 months ago.


Don

On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

Don,

Seems like a reasonable request to me, and I'll up the ante.

Where the &^%$ is the management - The Document Foundation - in all 
this, right now, today? Do they even watch this list? In short, do 
they give a damn that the only theoretically viable alternative to 
Access (for ordinary users) is in real trouble? Why aren't they 
showing up here with some clarifying position statement?


I'm desperate for time, a fix, and vision of a long-term solution to 
this mess. I have work to do today, a lot of it, and I can't do it. I 
can't solve the problem, and other than by implementing the 
regress-your-java solution idea (which I have yet to be successful 
with). No one else is solving it, either. For some, migrating to 
another backend is not a challenge. For the rest of us, it's unknown 
territory. I researched this a bit, and while there certainly IS stuff 
out there about how to do it, there's not a lot, and there are 
multiple levels of challenge with this solution anyway.


Personally, I'm definitely up for taking this on (what option do I 
really have?), but do we really have to straggle through the mountains 
one by one, eventually meeting on the other side, those who make it, 
to talk about the experience?


So, I propose two things:

1. Anyone who has TDF connections - please get on the phone and update 
them. The question is this, I think: how important, going forward, is 
Base, to them? If they are going to support it, today would be a very 
good day to do it. If not, yank the code, stop telling people they 
have a db component in LO, and start getting honest.


2. If LO's in trouble with the current sun-Java, so's OO. Where's 
Apache in this situation? Again, where's *TDF*? Why aren't they and 
Apache working together on this? Looks rather like a leadership 
problem, to me.


2. On the assumption that those of use who need a working db are going 
to have to find the way home ourselves (as I said, I need to get work 
done TODAY, and I'm not kidding) -


a. Can someone more Linux-clever than I lay out clearly the steps 
involve in implementing the solution found at the end of this thread - 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 
. 
As I pointed on in another post last night, I tried it and simply got 
in over my head. This is a decent short-term solution.


b. Can we work together to lay out the steps to set up an alternative 
back end? I'm going to start on sqlite, Others may wish to work on a 
different db engine. Then let's get the procedure out where it can be 
seen and used by others.


c. Let's get altruistic about the poor bloke who, this morning, is 
about to set up a Base db using a java-run backend: Could someone put 
a notice in the documentation updating people about the current 
situation? It's not right for us to keep this information only on this 
list.


Now I'm off to fully regress my java (I don't see a problem with 
this), while I work on getting sqlite and Base to play together.


Tom

On 07/28/2011 09:16 AM, Don C. Myers wrote:

Hi Tom,

When the first problems showed up for me about 6 months ago, it was 
recommended to go back to the Java 1.6.0.22 from 1.6.0.24. I have my 
database on 4 computers, and could never make things work with 
getting a previous version installed, so I gave up and just tolerated 
the situation. Also, I had security concerns going backwards

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Jean-Francois Nifenecker


Hi,

Le 28/07/2011 18:10, Heinrich Stoellinger a écrit :

In my view LO/OO do NOT require Java, neither on Linux nor on Windows.


AFAIK, LO/OOo currently *DO* require Java for Base to simply work. TDF 
have announced they would get rid of the java-isms in the code. This 
implies a major rewrite of Base, though.


--
Jean-Francois Nifenecker, Bordeaux

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Andy Brown


Tom Cloyd wrote:

< much clipped to save space >


2. If LO's in trouble with the current sun-Java, so's OO. Where's Apache
in this situation? Again, where's *TDF*? Why aren't they and Apache
working together on this? Looks rather like a leadership problem, to me.



Tom,  the other points I can not speak to but Apache does not have the 
code to work with yet.  There are people working on getting it so that 
work can get started.  Base is one of the problem areas that I plan to 
help work on, maybe a move to another DB engine is the answer.


As side note: There are sections on the two forums for base tutorials.

[1] http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=83
[2] http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewforum.phtml?f=10

I am no expert on Base so can not say how much the links will help but 
hopefully they will help some.


Andy

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Don C. Myers


Hi,

Different ones of us have tried this. It is a Java issue. I keep my 
database compacted on a regular basis. Thank you for trying to be of 
assistance.


Don

On 07/28/2011 12:45 PM, Paul D. Mirowsky wrote:
Has anybody suggested that this command should an option when saving 
when ever records are deleted?


On 7/27/2011 12:14 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

SHUTDOWN COMPACT




--

***
*


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Paul D. Mirowsky

Has anybody suggested that this command should an option when saving 
when ever records are deleted?


On 7/27/2011 12:14 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

SHUTDOWN COMPACT


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)
I agree too but i think we have to agitate to get something done.  So far the 
only response i got was an unhelpful RMS quote.  I have a Gandhi one  "First 
they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.".  
Which means we have all 4 steps to work through but since some fairly major 
companies would benefit it might be possible to get through most of those steps 
quite fast.  


Could TDF join
http://montyprogram.com/commercial/
Would that help?

TDF is not the type of organisation where we wait to see what "they" do.  It's 
up to us to work out what we need and from who and go get it.
Regards from
Tom :)




From: Tom Cloyd 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:06:15
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Heinz,

I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF recognizes 
this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.

Tom

On 07/28/2011 05:08 AM, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:
> Hallo Andreas,
> In my view, BASE "falling apart" would mean LO's "death sentence" in the long
> run! Anybody in even the simplest business environment will want to write
> documents based on data stored in business-critical databases (and I think I
> am right in assumung that relational DBs have been the standard now for 
>decades!).
> Does anybody REALLY think that a package like LO can survive if it ignores
> such an important sector of users? I sure don't!!!
> Gruesse aus Salzburg
> Heinz
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0200, Andreas Säger  
wrote:
> 
>> Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:
>>> I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
>>> business...
>>> Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
>>> Regards
>>> H
>>> 
>> 
>> Dear Heinrich,
>> 
>> Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related.
>> The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge
>> and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere
>> gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals
>> will notice the severe loss.
>> 
>> Grüße aus NRW,
>> Andreas
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


Don,

Seems like a reasonable request to me, and I'll up the ante.

Where the &^%$ is the management - The Document Foundation - in all 
this, right now, today? Do they even watch this list? In short, do they 
give a damn that the only theoretically viable alternative to Access 
(for ordinary users) is in real trouble? Why aren't they showing up here 
with some clarifying position statement?


I'm desperate for time, a fix, and vision of a long-term solution to 
this mess. I have work to do today, a lot of it, and I can't do it. I 
can't solve the problem, and other than by implementing the 
regress-your-java solution idea (which I have yet to be successful 
with). No one else is solving it, either. For some, migrating to another 
backend is not a challenge. For the rest of us, it's unknown territory. 
I researched this a bit, and while there certainly IS stuff out there 
about how to do it, there's not a lot, and there are multiple levels of 
challenge with this solution anyway.


Personally, I'm definitely up for taking this on (what option do I 
really have?), but do we really have to straggle through the mountains 
one by one, eventually meeting on the other side, those who make it, to 
talk about the experience?


So, I propose two things:

1. Anyone who has TDF connections - please get on the phone and update 
them. The question is this, I think: how important, going forward, is 
Base, to them? If they are going to support it, today would be a very 
good day to do it. If not, yank the code, stop telling people they have 
a db component in LO, and start getting honest.


2. If LO's in trouble with the current sun-Java, so's OO. Where's Apache 
in this situation? Again, where's *TDF*? Why aren't they and Apache 
working together on this? Looks rather like a leadership problem, to me.


2. On the assumption that those of use who need a working db are going 
to have to find the way home ourselves (as I said, I need to get work 
done TODAY, and I'm not kidding) -


a. Can someone more Linux-clever than I lay out clearly the steps 
involve in implementing the solution found at the end of this thread - 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 
. 
As I pointed on in another post last night, I tried it and simply got in 
over my head. This is a decent short-term solution.


b. Can we work together to lay out the steps to set up an alternative 
back end? I'm going to start on sqlite, Others may wish to work on a 
different db engine. Then let's get the procedure out where it can be 
seen and used by others.


c. Let's get altruistic about the poor bloke who, this morning, is about 
to set up a Base db using a java-run backend: Could someone put a notice 
in the documentation updating people about the current situation? It's 
not right for us to keep this information only on this list.


Now I'm off to fully regress my java (I don't see a problem with this), 
while I work on getting sqlite and Base to play together.


Tom

On 07/28/2011 09:16 AM, Don C. Myers wrote:

Hi Tom,

When the first problems showed up for me about 6 months ago, it was 
recommended to go back to the Java 1.6.0.22 from 1.6.0.24. I have my 
database on 4 computers, and could never make things work with getting 
a previous version installed, so I gave up and just tolerated the 
situation. Also, I had security concerns going backwards since, as I 
understand it, among other things updated Java versions have have 
security issues fixed. I'm relatively good with Ubuntu, but far from 
an expert. What we all know is that Java is the problem. Can someone 
give us instructions on how to use the LibreOffice front end with a 
database that doesn't require Java. I see that you had said that 
LibreOffice may be moving to sqlite? Is that a solution that anyone 
could help us with?


Don

On 07/28/2011 04:04 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

On 07/28/2011 12:44 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :


That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer 
move

test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.

Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the 
JDK/JRE

change suggested by someone else help any further ?


Alex



Am just about to make the switch - will let you know asap! I'm very 
hopeful. And I've decided to switch to sqlite when I'm not so 
rushed. Have heard that that's where LO's going anyway.


Tom

Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
here at all.


After 15 minutes of trying to make sense of what I found at
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/s/sun-java6/, I 
downloaded

sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb and

sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_all.deb, following the thread at 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Heinrich Stoellinger


Hi Don,
In my view LO/OO do NOT require Java, neither on Linux nor on Windows.
As I posted earlier, I have been using ODBC for both the Windows and
Linux versions. It works o.k., even though I still hope that the native
MySQL-supplied connector will function correctly under 3.4.2.
Regards
H

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:16:05 +0200, Don C. Myers  wrote:


Hi Tom,

When the first problems showed up for me about 6 months ago, it was
recommended to go back to the Java 1.6.0.22 from 1.6.0.24. I have my
database on 4 computers, and could never make things work with getting a
previous version installed, so I gave up and just tolerated the
situation. Also, I had security concerns going backwards since, as I
understand it, among other things updated Java versions have have
security issues fixed. I'm relatively good with Ubuntu, but far from an
expert. What we all know is that Java is the problem. Can someone give
us instructions on how to use the LibreOffice front end with a database
that doesn't require Java. I see that you had said that LibreOffice may
be moving to sqlite? Is that a solution that anyone could help us with?

Don

On 07/28/2011 04:04 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

On 07/28/2011 12:44 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :



That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer move
test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.


Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the
JDK/JRE
change suggested by someone else help any further ?


Alex




Am just about to make the switch - will let you know asap! I'm very
hopeful. And I've decided to switch to sqlite when I'm not so rushed.
Have heard that that's where LO's going anyway.

Tom


Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground
here at all.

After 15 minutes of trying to make sense of what I found at
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/s/sun-java6/, I
downloaded
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb and

sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_all.deb, following the thread at
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
.



Then I did this at a console, with the following result:


tomc@LDT:~/software_archive$ sudo dpkg --unpack
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb
[sudo] password for tomc:
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 38010
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start
with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 40706
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start
with digit
dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 6.26-1natty1 to
6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04.
(Reading database ... 190655 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1 (using
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb) ...
debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Dialog
debconf: (Dialog frontend requires a screen at least 13 lines tall and
31 columns wide.)
debconf: falling back to frontend: Readline
sun-dlj-v1-1 license has already been accepted
Unpacking replacement sun-java6-bin ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for menu ...
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line
38010 package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start
with digit

Most of this is just garble to me,


THIS is scary: "dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from
6.26-1natty1 to 6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04."
I said UNPACK, not INSTALL. What's this "downgrading" nonsense? Then
this: "Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1" Huh? All this
on an "unpack". This is beyond scary. This is nuts. What's up with
this???


Then, and this is the main problem - where's the result of the
command? I expected the unpack to put files in a dir, in the same dir
as the DEB file. Isn't this usually what happens when one unpacks a
file? But there's nothing there.


I'm in freefall right now. Don't know what just happened, don't know
what to do next. Can anyone help?


Guess I'm not going to get any db work done tonight, after all. Not a
good day.


Tom







--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


Heinz,

I completely agree. LO without a function Base won't fly. Either TDF 
recognizes this - by DOING something - or we have our answer.


Tom

On 07/28/2011 05:08 AM, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

Hallo Andreas,
In my view, BASE "falling apart" would mean LO's "death sentence" in 
the long

run! Anybody in even the simplest business environment will want to write
documents based on data stored in business-critical databases (and I 
think I
am right in assumung that relational DBs have been the standard now 
for decades!).
Does anybody REALLY think that a package like LO can survive if it 
ignores

such an important sector of users? I sure don't!!!
Gruesse aus Salzburg
Heinz


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0200, Andreas Säger 
 wrote:



Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H



Dear Heinrich,

Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related.
The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge
and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere
gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals
will notice the severe loss.

Grüße aus NRW,
Andreas








--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Don C. Myers


Hi Tom,

When the first problems showed up for me about 6 months ago, it was 
recommended to go back to the Java 1.6.0.22 from 1.6.0.24. I have my 
database on 4 computers, and could never make things work with getting a 
previous version installed, so I gave up and just tolerated the 
situation. Also, I had security concerns going backwards since, as I 
understand it, among other things updated Java versions have have 
security issues fixed. I'm relatively good with Ubuntu, but far from an 
expert. What we all know is that Java is the problem. Can someone give 
us instructions on how to use the LibreOffice front end with a database 
that doesn't require Java. I see that you had said that LibreOffice may 
be moving to sqlite? Is that a solution that anyone could help us with?


Don

On 07/28/2011 04:04 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

On 07/28/2011 12:44 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :



That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer move
test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.

Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the 
JDK/JRE

change suggested by someone else help any further ?


Alex



Am just about to make the switch - will let you know asap! I'm very 
hopeful. And I've decided to switch to sqlite when I'm not so rushed. 
Have heard that that's where LO's going anyway.


Tom

Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
here at all.


After 15 minutes of trying to make sense of what I found at
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/s/sun-java6/, I 
downloaded

sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb and

sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_all.deb, following the thread at 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 
. 




Then I did this at a console, with the following result:


tomc@LDT:~/software_archive$ sudo dpkg --unpack 
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb

[sudo] password for tomc:
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 38010 
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start 
with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 40706 
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start 
with digit
dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 6.26-1natty1 to 
6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04.

(Reading database ... 190655 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1 (using 
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb) ...

debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Dialog
debconf: (Dialog frontend requires a screen at least 13 lines tall and 
31 columns wide.)

debconf: falling back to frontend: Readline
sun-dlj-v1-1 license has already been accepted
Unpacking replacement sun-java6-bin ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for menu ...
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 
38010 package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start 
with digit


Most of this is just garble to me,


THIS is scary: "dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 
6.26-1natty1 to 6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04."
I said UNPACK, not INSTALL. What's this "downgrading" nonsense? Then 
this: "Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1" Huh? All this 
on an "unpack". This is beyond scary. This is nuts. What's up with 
this???



Then, and this is the main problem - where's the result of the 
command? I expected the unpack to put files in a dir, in the same dir 
as the DEB file. Isn't this usually what happens when one unpacks a 
file? But there's nothing there.



I'm in freefall right now. Don't know what just happened, don't know 
what to do next. Can anyone help?



Guess I'm not going to get any db work done tonight, after all. Not a 
good day.



Tom




--

***
*


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Heinrich Stoellinger


Hello Tom,
That's fine. However, to use such a DB-backend one also needs support in a
myriad of other software in a webserver (mail, PHP-frameworks, etc., etc.).
Regards
H. S.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:31:50 +0200, Tom Davies  wrote:


Hi again :)
As well as MariaDb there is also Drizzle which is supported by many of TDF's
supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drizzle_(database_server)
and their homepage
http://drizzle.org/
Regards again from
that other Tom ;)






From: Heinrich Stoellinger 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org; Tom Cloyd 
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 7:15:31
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi Tom,
Just my - maybe naive - 2 pennies worth of comments:
As I mentioned before, I have been using OO/LO for years together with
BASE with MySQL (which - also "sigh") now "belongs" to Oracle as well.
As a connector to the DB I have tried out the Java version (always had
trouble with it one way or the other!) as well as ODBC/UNIXODBC (which
is what I am now using under Linux and which works sort of!). With
MySQL there is also the native connector which I would actually prefer
to use - but, yes you guess right - does NOT work on either LO 3.3.3 or
3.4.1 under Linux. A bit confusing, isn't it!
I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:19:26 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:


Thanks, Andreas.

To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install
sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing, then
direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is reported, does
not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).

Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I get
back to work, later today

The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the problem
being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest sun-java
updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource dbs out of
the water?

Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that is
now associated with Oracle?

Sigh.

Tom

On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:

The Base documentation:
http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial
l


My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java
version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253











--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 28.07.2011 10:04, Tom Cloyd wrote:


I'm in freefall right now. Don't know what just happened, don't know
what to do next. Can anyone help?


Guess I'm not going to get any db work done tonight, after all. Not a
good day.


Tom





I used my graphical zip tool to extract the data.tar.gz from the 2 
package files.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi again :)
As well as MariaDb there is also Drizzle which is supported by many of TDF's 
supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drizzle_(database_server)
and their homepage
http://drizzle.org/
Regards again from 
that other Tom ;)






From: Heinrich Stoellinger 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org; Tom Cloyd 
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 7:15:31
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi Tom,
Just my - maybe naive - 2 pennies worth of comments:
As I mentioned before, I have been using OO/LO for years together with
BASE with MySQL (which - also "sigh") now "belongs" to Oracle as well.
As a connector to the DB I have tried out the Java version (always had
trouble with it one way or the other!) as well as ODBC/UNIXODBC (which
is what I am now using under Linux and which works sort of!). With
MySQL there is also the native connector which I would actually prefer
to use - but, yes you guess right - does NOT work on either LO 3.3.3 or
3.4.1 under Linux. A bit confusing, isn't it!
I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:19:26 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:

> Thanks, Andreas.
>
> To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install
> sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing, then
> direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is reported, does
> not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).
>
> Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I get
> back to work, later today
>
> The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the problem
> being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest sun-java
> updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource dbs out of
> the water?
>
> Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that is
> now associated with Oracle?
>
> Sigh.
>
> Tom
>
> On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:
>> The Base documentation:
>>http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial
>>l
>>
>>
>> My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java
>> version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:
>> http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi :)
Good call.  Wikipedia gave this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MariaDB
and  their homepage
http://mariadb.org/

Perhaps we could try to get some help from their devs.  They might have soem 
good ideas on how Base needs to be developed.
Regards from
Tom :)

From: Heinrich Stoellinger 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org; Tom Cloyd 
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 7:15:31
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hi Tom,
Just my - maybe naive - 2 pennies worth of comments:
As I mentioned before, I have been using OO/LO for years together with
BASE with MySQL (which - also "sigh") now "belongs" to Oracle as well.
As a connector to the DB I have tried out the Java version (always had
trouble with it one way or the other!) as well as ODBC/UNIXODBC (which
is what I am now using under Linux and which works sort of!). With
MySQL there is also the native connector which I would actually prefer
to use - but, yes you guess right - does NOT work on either LO 3.3.3 or
3.4.1 under Linux. A bit confusing, isn't it!
I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:19:26 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:

> Thanks, Andreas.
>
> To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install
> sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing, then
> direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is reported, does
> not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).
>
> Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I get
> back to work, later today
>
> The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the problem
> being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest sun-java
> updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource dbs out of
> the water?
>
> Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that is
> now associated with Oracle?
>
> Sigh.
>
> Tom
>
> On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:
>> The Base documentation:
>>http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial
>>l
>>
>>
>> My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java
>> version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:
>> http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Heinrich Stoellinger


Hallo Andreas,
In my view, BASE "falling apart" would mean LO's "death sentence" in the long
run! Anybody in even the simplest business environment will want to write
documents based on data stored in business-critical databases (and I think I
am right in assumung that relational DBs have been the standard now for 
decades!).
Does anybody REALLY think that a package like LO can survive if it ignores
such an important sector of users? I sure don't!!!
Gruesse aus Salzburg
Heinz


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0200, Andreas Säger  wrote:


Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H



Dear Heinrich,

Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related.
The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge
and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere
gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals
will notice the severe loss.

Grüße aus NRW,
Andreas





--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

From: Tom Cloyd 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 9:04:22
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:44 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
>> Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>>> That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer move
>>> test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.
>>> 
>> Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the JDK/JRE
>> change suggested by someone else help any further ?
>> 
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Am just about to make the switch - will let you know asap! I'm very hopeful. 
>And I've decided to switch to sqlite when I'm not so rushed. Have heard that 
>that's where LO's going anyway.
> 
> Tom
> 
Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  here at 
all.

After 15 minutes of trying to make sense of what I found at
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/s/sun-java6/, I downloaded
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb and

sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_all.deb, following the thread at 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
<http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0>.
.

Then I did this at a console, with the following result:

tomc@LDT:~/software_archive$ sudo dpkg --unpack 
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb
[sudo] password for tomc:
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 38010 package 
'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 40706 package 
'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 6.26-1natty1 to 
6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04.
(Reading database ... 190655 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1 (using 
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb) ...
debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Dialog
debconf: (Dialog frontend requires a screen at least 13 lines tall and 31 
columns wide.)
debconf: falling back to frontend: Readline
sun-dlj-v1-1 license has already been accepted
Unpacking replacement sun-java6-bin ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for menu ...
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 38010 
package 
'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start with digit

Most of this is just garble to me,

THIS is scary: "dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 6.26-1natty1 to 
6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04."
I said UNPACK, not INSTALL. What's this "downgrading" nonsense? Then this: 
"Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1" Huh? All this on an "unpack". 
This is beyond scary. This is nuts. What's up with this???

Then, and this is the main problem - where's the result of the command? I 
expected the unpack to put files in a dir, in the same dir as the DEB file. 
Isn't this usually what happens when one unpacks a file? But there's nothing 
there.

I'm in freefall right now. Don't know what just happened, don't know what to do 
next. Can anyone help?

Guess I'm not going to get any db work done tonight, after all. Not a good day.

Tom

Hi
Don't worry about downgrading a package.  It's easy to upgrade again if you 
need 
to do that later.  Sometimes packages suffer from regressions making it 
important to downgrade.  Wine has often suffered from this.
Regards from
Tom :)

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-28 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 28.07.2011 08:15, Heinrich Stoellinger wrote:

I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H



Dear Heinrich,

Face it: There is not a single LO developer doing anything Base related. 
The Base component will fall apart sooner or later. Writer's mail merge 
and bibliography will be spreadsheets, form controls will be mere 
gimmicks and nobody except you and me and some hundreds of professionals 
will notice the severe loss.


Grüße aus NRW,
Andreas


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


, On 07/28/2011 12:53 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

On 07/28/2011 12:44 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :



That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer move
test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.


Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the JDK/JRE
change suggested by someone else help any further ?


Alex



Am just about to make the switch - will let you know asap! I'm very 
hopeful. And I've decided to switch to sqlite when I'm not so rushed. 
Have heard that that's where LO's going anyway.


Tom

Ug. This is getting ugly really fast. I'm really not on home ground  
here at all.


After 15 minutes of trying to make sense of what I found at
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/s/sun-java6/, I downloaded
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb and

sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_all.deb, following the thread at 
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 
.



Then I did this at a console, with the following result:


tomc@LDT:~/software_archive$ sudo dpkg --unpack 
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb

[sudo] password for tomc:
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 38010 
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start 
with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 40706 
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start 
with digit
dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 6.26-1natty1 to 
6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04.

(Reading database ... 190655 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1 (using 
sun-java6-bin_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04_i386.deb) ...

debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Dialog
debconf: (Dialog frontend requires a screen at least 13 lines tall and 
31 columns wide.)

debconf: falling back to frontend: Readline
sun-dlj-v1-1 license has already been accepted
Unpacking replacement sun-java6-bin ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
Processing triggers for menu ...
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 38010 
package 'amaya':
error in Version string 'wx-11.3.1-1': version number does not start 
with digit


Most of this is just garble to me,


THIS is scary: "dpkg: warning: downgrading sun-java6-bin from 
6.26-1natty1 to 6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04."
I said UNPACK, not INSTALL. What's this "downgrading" nonsense? Then 
this: "Preparing to replace sun-java6-bin 6.26-1natty1" Huh? All this on 
an "unpack". This is beyond scary. This is nuts. What's up with this???



Then, and this is the main problem - where's the result of the command? 
I expected the unpack to put files in a dir, in the same dir as the DEB 
file. Isn't this usually what happens when one unpacks a file? But 
there's nothing there.



I'm in freefall right now. Don't know what just happened, don't know 
what to do next. Can anyone help?



Guess I'm not going to get any db work done tonight, after all. Not a 
good day.



Tom


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


On 07/28/2011 12:44 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :



That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer move
test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.


Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the JDK/JRE
change suggested by someone else help any further ?


Alex



Am just about to make the switch - will let you know asap! I'm very 
hopeful. And I've decided to switch to sqlite when I'm not so rushed. 
Have heard that that's where LO's going anyway.


Tom

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Alexander Thurgood

Le 27/07/11 18:14, Tom Cloyd a écrit :


> That command appears to have cut 5 seconds off the record pointer move
> test, and also off the full db search test I ran previously.
> 

Well better than nothing I suppose, but I do sympathise. Did the JDK/JRE
change suggested by someone else help any further ?


Alex



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Simon Cropper (The foss Workflow Guides)


On 07/27/2011 04:18 PM, Andreas Säger wrote:

Am 28.07.2011 00:00, Tom Cloyd wrote:

This is do not understand. I thought HYPERSQL was the default db engine.
You say you're using it to server ANOTHER db? why not access that
directly through Base? Am I misunderstanding something (entirely 
possible)?

I found that doing it this way dramatically speeded (sped?) up the
process.

You don't way what your external db is, and I'm curious about this.

You might try converting over to that model. I have heard that H2 DB
is actually a bit better for this purpose and that it's not
tremendously difficult to convert over to H2 from hypersql

This is an interesting option, and I'm thinking that later today I'll
install H2 and set up a test to see is the problem I'm experiencing
vanishes. If not, then it's MYSQL, I guess.



Again: Under Linux any Java database is crawling unless you use one 
particular Java version which is 1.6.22.
I use Base documents with embedded HSQLDB 1.8, HSQLDB 2 server and H2 
as well. The latter runs well with half a million records, a dozend 
relations and no Java other than 1.6.22

http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253#436698


Thanks Andreas. I think I'm clear about this now. Linux + java db is 
currently a problem, so regression to the 1.6.22 is the way to, unless 
one utterly leave Java dbs behind.


As an aside, have you thoughts to share about HSQLDB vs H2? Any good 
reason to migrate to H2 (a question entirely separate from the db speed 
question). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you have time to 
share them.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Heinrich Stoellinger


Hi Tom,
Just my - maybe naive - 2 pennies worth of comments:
As I mentioned before, I have been using OO/LO for years together with
BASE with MySQL (which - also "sigh") now "belongs" to Oracle as well.
As a connector to the DB I have tried out the Java version (always had
trouble with it one way or the other!) as well as ODBC/UNIXODBC (which
is what I am now using under Linux and which works sort of!). With
MySQL there is also the native connector which I would actually prefer
to use - but, yes you guess right - does NOT work on either LO 3.3.3 or
3.4.1 under Linux. A bit confusing, isn't it!
I am not giving up hope yet for LO 3.4.2 - especially since it targets
business...
Isn't there a OpenSource fork of MySQL called MariaDB?!?
Regards
H


On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:19:26 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:


Thanks, Andreas.

To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install
sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing, then
direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is reported, does
not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).

Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I get
back to work, later today

The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the problem
being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest sun-java
updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource dbs out of
the water?

Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that is
now associated with Oracle?

Sigh.

Tom

On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:

The Base documentation:
http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial


My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java
version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253








--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 28.07.2011 00:47, Tom Cloyd wrote:

An obvious alternative, as well: move data tables to a non-java db, and
use LO as front end for that - sqlite might be a reasonable first choice.

t.


Yes, MySQL, SQLite, PostrgreSQL can circumvent your Linux/Java problem 
while providing first class database engines. I run a HSQLDB server 
because the databases transformed seamlessly from embedded HSQLDB drafts 
and the performance problem does not occur on Windows systems where the 
databases are in productive use.
H2 was an experiment when the performance issue was not apparent. H2 is 
a great database engine, very easy to set up for exclusive use on the 
local machine (drop files and use URL).
I expect Base to fall apart, and it will be a big relief as long as the 
mere database connectivity and form controls persist. If not, I can not 
use this office suite anymore since all our spreadsheet models and most 
of the Writer templates are connected to some database one way or the other.




On 07/27/2011 04:19 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

Thanks, Andreas.


You're welcome,


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 28.07.2011 00:00, Tom Cloyd wrote:

This is do not understand. I thought HYPERSQL was the default db engine.
You say you're using it to server ANOTHER db? why not access that
directly through Base? Am I misunderstanding something (entirely possible)?

I found that doing it this way dramatically speeded (sped?) up the
process.

You don't way what your external db is, and I'm curious about this.

You might try converting over to that model. I have heard that H2 DB
is actually a bit better for this purpose and that it's not
tremendously difficult to convert over to H2 from hypersql

This is an interesting option, and I'm thinking that later today I'll
install H2 and set up a test to see is the problem I'm experiencing
vanishes. If not, then it's MYSQL, I guess.



Again: Under Linux any Java database is crawling unless you use one 
particular Java version which is 1.6.22.
I use Base documents with embedded HSQLDB 1.8, HSQLDB 2 server and H2 as 
well. The latter runs well with half a million records, a dozend 
relations and no Java other than 1.6.22

http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253#436698


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


On 28/07/11 02:30, Tom Cloyd wrote:

1. Are there any alternative graphic interface tools that even
approximate Base's functionality (other than Access)? The last time I
looked - a number of weeks ago, I didn't come up with any equivalents.


Tom,

The GUI is one element but how do you want too access the data and use 
the output? If you need integration with LO then your only option at the 
moment is to trial using base with another backend; something like 
MySQL, SQlite, Postgre, etc?


If you are happy using any data storage system, alternatives are around 
but it depends a lot on what you want to do.


To investigate options further you need to clarify exactly what you are 
doing, what you are trying to achieve and how permanent a solution you 
are after.


--
Cheers Simon

   Simon Cropper
   Website Administrator
   http://www.fossworkflowguides.com
   The fossWorkflow Guides
   (c) Simon Cropper CC-BY-SA 3.0 Australia
   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/au/deed.en

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

An obvious alternative, as well: move data tables to a non-java db, and
use LO as front end for that - sqlite might be a reasonable first choice.

On 07/27/2011 04:19 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:

Thanks, Andreas.

To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install
sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing,
then direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is
reported, does not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).

Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I
get back to work, later today

The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the
problem being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest
sun-java updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource
dbs out of the water?

Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that
is now associated with Oracle?

Sigh.

Tom

On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:

The Base documentation:
http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial

My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java
version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:

http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


Thanks, Andreas.

To summarize what I learned from that second link: I need to install 
sun-java6-jre_6.22-0ubuntu1~10.04 into a directory of my choosing, then 
direct LO to use this special older version (which, it is reported, does 
not cause the awful slowdown we're experiencing).


Look like a short-term solution I can live with. Give me hope that I get 
back to work, later today


The long-term solution appears entirely opaque, however. Is the problem 
being reported to Oracle (who I presume is behind the latest sun-java 
updates). Is this an Oracle plot to blow OO and LO opensource dbs out of 
the water?


Is there any hope we can cut this dependancy upon a java version that is 
now associated with Oracle?


Sigh.

Tom

On 07/27/2011 02:26 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:

The Base documentation:
http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial 



My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java 
version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:

http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253





--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


On 07/27/2011 11:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:

Hi Tom,

On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 18:07 +0100, Tom Davies wrote:

We need to attract some devs to this project.  Preferably paid devs because
there is a bit of a quagmire trying to work out which patches have which
licences and so which cannot be incorporated into the LGPL and which can.

Ho hum; the legal / ownership angle is not so difficult to sort out;
usually finding&  fixing the bugs is more problematic ;-)

Your suggestion to get lots of companies to fund more developers is a
great one - but can be organisationally problematic. Ultimately I
suggest the most reliable way is to find and/or encourage new developers
to do the work. There is a great spot for someone to love&  'own' base
in the project, it's a responsible role, and we'd really appreciate
someone to do it.


   I think those researchers could move into coding or documentation after
even perhaps just 3 - 6 months with any luck.  How could we get this going
forwards before the whole Suite falls over due to the 1 app's failures?

This is like RMS' amusing 'myth of the starving genius' :-) If there is
a serious bug that annoys enough people: particularly people that are
able to understand and build databases (which are near being programmers
anyway) - then *surely* if it matters enough, one or other of them will
start to dig into the code to fix it.

There is no magic bullet here, or other white knights coming to fix
bugs in LibreOffice I'm afraid. If we want it done, we have to do it
ourselves. If you know what a database is, and how to use it, then you
are probable quite able to invest some time in building the latest code
and having a poke at it.

Your joking, right?

Users aren't programmers, and usually aren't even documenters. Whatever 
language Base is written in (C, I presume, and probably some C++?) I 
sure don't know it and am not going to learn it in the 20 minutes of 
spare time I have each day (on good days). And even if I did, you surely 
don't want a non-professional muddling around THIS code base, surely.


If we've come to this it's time to start looking for the lifeboats, 
which is basically what I'm doing today.


Tom



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Michael Meeks

Hi Tom,

On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 18:07 +0100, Tom Davies wrote:
> We need to attract some devs to this project.  Preferably paid devs because 
> there is a bit of a quagmire trying to work out which patches have which 
> licences and so which cannot be incorporated into the LGPL and which can.

Ho hum; the legal / ownership angle is not so difficult to sort out;
usually finding & fixing the bugs is more problematic ;-)

Your suggestion to get lots of companies to fund more developers is a
great one - but can be organisationally problematic. Ultimately I
suggest the most reliable way is to find and/or encourage new developers
to do the work. There is a great spot for someone to love & 'own' base
in the project, it's a responsible role, and we'd really appreciate
someone to do it.

>   I think those researchers could move into coding or documentation after 
> even perhaps just 3 - 6 months with any luck.  How could we get this going 
> forwards before the whole Suite falls over due to the 1 app's failures?  

This is like RMS' amusing 'myth of the starving genius' :-) If there is
a serious bug that annoys enough people: particularly people that are
able to understand and build databases (which are near being programmers
anyway) - then *surely* if it matters enough, one or other of them will
start to dig into the code to fix it.

There is no magic bullet here, or other white knights coming to fix
bugs in LibreOffice I'm afraid. If we want it done, we have to do it
ourselves. If you know what a database is, and how to use it, then you
are probable quite able to invest some time in building the latest code
and having a poke at it.

Sorry,

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Tom Davies

Hi :)
We need to attract some devs to this project.  Preferably paid devs because 
there is a bit of a quagmire trying to work out which patches have which 
licences and so which cannot be incorporated into the LGPL and which can.  It 
needs people that work like devs but also people that like to research like 
documenters.  Could we get Wikipedia, Google, RedHat, Cannonical and others to 
stump up some cash for this?  Could TDF itself afford to pay for it?  I think 
we 
need a couple of full-time paid researchers and a paid dev to start things 
moving.  I think those researchers could move into coding or documentation 
after 
even perhaps just 3 - 6 months with any luck.  How could we get this going 
forwards before the whole Suite falls over due to the 1 app's failures?  

Regards from
Tom :)

From: Heinrich Stoellinger 
To: users@global.libreoffice.org; Tom Cloyd 
Sent: Wed, 27 July, 2011 17:53:40
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

Hello,
I have been using OpenOffice and now LibreOffice with BASE for a long
time. My MySQL database "serves" a windband and all the issues related
to such an animal (eg. repertoire, uniforms, members, contacts, concert
programmes, etc., etc.).
Of course my tables are small compared to what I used to see when working
with DB2 at large IBM-customers. "Big" tables might have some 30.000
tuples in them, so just looking for a particular item using a filter
such as "like name*" never takes long.
On the other hand, I have been complaining about problems using the
report writer for serial letters. Conditions based on variables in a
table are not handled correctly in the Linux 3.3.3 version (they seem
th work under Windows!!).
I REALLY depend on BASE not falling behind or on its face altogether.
So I also think that some emphasis should be place on it. Unfortunately
I neither have the knowledge nor the time to devote myself to such an
effort...
Regards from Austria
H. Stoellinger

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:30:46 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:

> Don,
>
> So, for 6 months, OO (I presume) and now LO (is it that old?) have been
> promoting a db which doesn't work. I have over 10 full time days
> invested in this, and I'm watching it fall apart in front of me,
> apparently irretrievably. I understand LO has NO programmer working on
> BASE, and with the lack of protest see on the list no one's using it anyway.
>
> I'm baffled by all this. This thing is actually far more stable and
> reliable than I ever experienced Access to be when I used it daily for
> about 5 years. The interface designer works well. There's just not much
> to be distressed by and a lot to like, but...it looks like a dead dog.
> This is sad, and perplexing, and ultimately irrational.
>
> For me personally, it's also desperate - or rather *I* am. I'm doing
> this thing to support my work with a non-profit educational group
> associated with the Wikimedia Foundation (the folks who manage
> Wikipedia). I only have so much time, and I've invested a lot in this
> project. Now I essentially have little or nothing to show for it, right
> when we're working hard against an utterly inflexible deadline.
>
> I see no reason to hope for a fix with Base, and when my record count
> doubles again, later this week, it'll take almost 5 minutes to locate a
> record that's at the other end of the db, I need an alternative.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions?
>
> More specifically,
>
> 1. Are there any alternative graphic interface tools that even
> approximate Base's functionality (other than Access)? The last time I
> looked - a number of weeks ago, I didn't come up with any equivalents.
>
> 2. How feasible is it simply to use SQL? I never done this, so I have no
> idea.
>
> Since I'm reasonable comfortable with Ruby, I'm trying to think of a way
> to port this thing to a db engine that has a ruby driver (which HYPERSQL
> doesn't - tells us something, doesn't it?), and do it all from a command
> line. Painful thought, but better than grinding to a complete halt.
>
> I'm eager to read people's thoughts on all this.
>
> And thanks, Alex and Don, for your response.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> On 07/27/2011 06:34 AM, Don Myers wrote:
>> I've used base ever since it was first offered. About 6 months ago a
>> Java update (I'm running Ubuntu 11.04) slowed it down to a pathetic
>> speed. The latest Java update didn't really help much. I was hoping it
>> would be fixed that update, or that the LibreOffice folks would find a
>> solution
>>
>> On 07/27/2011 07:03 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
>>> Le 27/07/11 10:16, Tom Cloyd a écrit :
>>>
&

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Heinrich Stoellinger


Hello,
I have been using OpenOffice and now LibreOffice with BASE for a long
time. My MySQL database "serves" a windband and all the issues related
to such an animal (eg. repertoire, uniforms, members, contacts, concert
programmes, etc., etc.).
Of course my tables are small compared to what I used to see when working
with DB2 at large IBM-customers. "Big" tables might have some 30.000
tuples in them, so just looking for a particular item using a filter
such as "like name*" never takes long.
On the other hand, I have been complaining about problems using the
report writer for serial letters. Conditions based on variables in a
table are not handled correctly in the Linux 3.3.3 version (they seem
th work under Windows!!).
I REALLY depend on BASE not falling behind or on its face altogether.
So I also think that some emphasis should be place on it. Unfortunately
I neither have the knowledge nor the time to devote myself to such an
effort...
Regards from Austria
H. Stoellinger


On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:30:46 +0200, Tom Cloyd  wrote:


Don,

So, for 6 months, OO (I presume) and now LO (is it that old?) have been
promoting a db which doesn't work. I have over 10 full time days
invested in this, and I'm watching it fall apart in front of me,
apparently irretrievably. I understand LO has NO programmer working on
BASE, and with the lack of protest see on the list no one's using it anyway.

I'm baffled by all this. This thing is actually far more stable and
reliable than I ever experienced Access to be when I used it daily for
about 5 years. The interface designer works well. There's just not much
to be distressed by and a lot to like, but...it looks like a dead dog.
This is sad, and perplexing, and ultimately irrational.

For me personally, it's also desperate - or rather *I* am. I'm doing
this thing to support my work with a non-profit educational group
associated with the Wikimedia Foundation (the folks who manage
Wikipedia). I only have so much time, and I've invested a lot in this
project. Now I essentially have little or nothing to show for it, right
when we're working hard against an utterly inflexible deadline.

I see no reason to hope for a fix with Base, and when my record count
doubles again, later this week, it'll take almost 5 minutes to locate a
record that's at the other end of the db, I need an alternative.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

More specifically,

1. Are there any alternative graphic interface tools that even
approximate Base's functionality (other than Access)? The last time I
looked - a number of weeks ago, I didn't come up with any equivalents.

2. How feasible is it simply to use SQL? I never done this, so I have no
idea.

Since I'm reasonable comfortable with Ruby, I'm trying to think of a way
to port this thing to a db engine that has a ruby driver (which HYPERSQL
doesn't - tells us something, doesn't it?), and do it all from a command
line. Painful thought, but better than grinding to a complete halt.

I'm eager to read people's thoughts on all this.

And thanks, Alex and Don, for your response.

Tom



On 07/27/2011 06:34 AM, Don Myers wrote:

I've used base ever since it was first offered. About 6 months ago a
Java update (I'm running Ubuntu 11.04) slowed it down to a pathetic
speed. The latest Java update didn't really help much. I was hoping it
would be fixed that update, or that the LibreOffice folks would find a
solution

On 07/27/2011 07:03 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 10:16, Tom Cloyd a écrit :

Hi Tom,



Just to move the record pointer from the first to the last record takes
almost exactly 20 seconds. To do a search of the beginning of the main
text field for a 6 character string that isn't there (i.e., the engine
searches to the very end of the table) takes 2 minutes and 5 seconds.
You can imagine how long it takes to locate and update 10 records. This
is the worst performance I've ever seen in a database, period.

Unfortunately, you are not the first, and no doubt the last either, to
report performance issues using the Base with integrated hsqldb. The
problem is not hsqldb, which actually on its own performs quite well,
but the manner in which Base loads everything into memory to be able to
work.

You could try issuing a SHUTDOWN COMPACT command from the Tools>  SQL
dialog, then saving and closing your ODB file before re-opening it
again.

Alex










--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow

2011-07-27 Thread Andreas Säger


The Base documentation:
http://openoffice.org/projects/documentation/downloads/directory/Base/Mid%20level%20Base%20tutorial

My chrystal ball tells me that you run LibreOffice with a recent Java 
version under Linux, therefore this is the solution to your problem:

http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=125253


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow


Don,

So, for 6 months, OO (I presume) and now LO (is it that old?) have been 
promoting a db which doesn't work. I have over 10 full time days 
invested in this, and I'm watching it fall apart in front of me, 
apparently irretrievably. I understand LO has NO programmer working on 
BASE, and with the lack of protest see on the list no one's using it anyway.


I'm baffled by all this. This thing is actually far more stable and 
reliable than I ever experienced Access to be when I used it daily for 
about 5 years. The interface designer works well. There's just not much 
to be distressed by and a lot to like, but...it looks like a dead dog. 
This is sad, and perplexing, and ultimately irrational.


For me personally, it's also desperate - or rather *I* am. I'm doing 
this thing to support my work with a non-profit educational group 
associated with the Wikimedia Foundation (the folks who manage 
Wikipedia). I only have so much time, and I've invested a lot in this 
project. Now I essentially have little or nothing to show for it, right 
when we're working hard against an utterly inflexible deadline.


I see no reason to hope for a fix with Base, and when my record count 
doubles again, later this week, it'll take almost 5 minutes to locate a 
record that's at the other end of the db, I need an alternative.


Does anyone have any suggestions?

More specifically,

1. Are there any alternative graphic interface tools that even 
approximate Base's functionality (other than Access)? The last time I 
looked - a number of weeks ago, I didn't come up with any equivalents.


2. How feasible is it simply to use SQL? I never done this, so I have no 
idea.


Since I'm reasonable comfortable with Ruby, I'm trying to think of a way 
to port this thing to a db engine that has a ruby driver (which HYPERSQL 
doesn't - tells us something, doesn't it?), and do it all from a command 
line. Painful thought, but better than grinding to a complete halt.


I'm eager to read people's thoughts on all this.

And thanks, Alex and Don, for your response.

Tom



On 07/27/2011 06:34 AM, Don Myers wrote:
I've used base ever since it was first offered. About 6 months ago a 
Java update (I'm running Ubuntu 11.04) slowed it down to a pathetic 
speed. The latest Java update didn't really help much. I was hoping it 
would be fixed that update, or that the LibreOffice folks would find a 
solution


On 07/27/2011 07:03 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 27/07/11 10:16, Tom Cloyd a écrit :

Hi Tom,



Just to move the record pointer from the first to the last record takes
almost exactly 20 seconds. To do a search of the beginning of the main
text field for a 6 character string that isn't there (i.e., the engine
searches to the very end of the table) takes 2 minutes and 5 seconds.
You can imagine how long it takes to locate and update 10 records. This
is the worst performance I've ever seen in a database, period.

Unfortunately, you are not the first, and no doubt the last either, to
report performance issues using the Base with integrated hsqldb. The
problem is not hsqldb, which actually on its own performs quite well,
but the manner in which Base loads everything into memory to be able to
work.

You could try issuing a SHUTDOWN COMPACT command from the Tools>  SQL
dialog, then saving and closing your ODB file before re-opening it 
again.


Alex







--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow