It's slow even if non-searching tiddlers are all that is rendered. It's slow with only 6 other tabs open. It's slow even if FF has just been opened. It's slow even though instrumentation is off. It's slow even if doing a single-field match.
It's not just searching that's slow. EVERYTHING you type is slow. You sit there waiting ten to 20 seconds for your last typed entries to appear. It could be that it's the number of tiddlers rather than the gross size of the TW that matters. In which case I suppose I could do some crazy design where a single tiddler contains all the words that start with "a", etc. But this makes reverse lookups harder. Thanks! On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-7, TonyM wrote: > > Mark, > > To fully address your experience consider if you can show or share the > wiki. Alternativy share some test data of an equivalent size. Also consider > it from a "what must it render perspective". If for example the tiddlers > were all listed in the table of contents and this is displayed in the > sidebar this will refresh every change that may effect that toc list. Hide > the side bar and see if its the same. > > I had 12Mb files working well in TiddlyWiki Classic, so it should be good > in TW5 > > In an App I built there was a considerable difference with 5.1.20 however > be warned there was an accidental leaving on of "Performance > instrumentation", see Control Panel > Settings > Performance > instrumentation - uncheck save and reload. > > Also a normal search that is activated for any three letter combination > and lists the result below may just be inappropriate for such an > application. Perhaps you need a enter search criteria then hit a search > button, which renders the results in a list, rather than an instant > response popup/list. > > There is also a little gotcha with browser memory. Try with nothing else > open by or in a tab of the browser and see if it improves, this will give > us a clue to its bottle necks. Browsers also have a maximum memory usage > set so they do not overpower the device/computer but this is often a fixed > value, when you mostly work in the browser there is value making more ram > available to the browser especially if you have 8-16GB available. > > The more you share the more we can help. > > Regards > Tony > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:19:37 PM UTC+10, Mark S. wrote: >> >> My project may have been over ambitious. But I thought there were going >> to be some >> improvements in 5.1.20+ that would allow for larger TW files. I currently >> have a TW file >> with about 36,000 short dictionary definitions. Each tiddler consists >> only of a title >> and a field, EN, with usually only 3 or four words in it. The overall >> size is only 10 megs. >> >> Overall, the performance is impracticably slow. Ten seconds to open a >> tiddler. 20 seconds or more >> to do a simple search box search. As much as 25 seconds or more to close >> out tiddlers that >> need to render a custom search. In most cases, you have to type blind >> because the >> keystroke refresh is also incredibly slow. >> >> I'm wondering if the performance improvements actually made it into the >> core, or if >> my expectations were too high. Actually, the performance noticeably >> declined >> after the first 12,000 entries. >> >> At the moment it seems like I need to start over, using a data dictionary >> instead of >> tiddlers for storage. >> >> Firefox, Windows 7, TW 5.1.21 >> >> Thanks! >> Mark >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/2ef5aae4-83c9-411e-bb62-ad97832f6b2c%40googlegroups.com.
