Thanks for the reply! It can be retrieved from:
https://github.com/Marxsal/EODIC How do we get the output out of the console? It loses all the table formatting when I try to copy it. Thanks! On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 8:20:07 AM UTC-7, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Interesting! I’d echo the request to share the wiki if you’re able to. > > Perhaps you could use the performance instrumentation tools to see if any > filters are bottlenecks: > > https://tiddlywiki.com/#Performance%20Instrumentation > > In particular, after turning on performance instrumentation and > restarting, please can you post the output of $tw.perf.log() typed in the > browser developer console. > > If it’s any comfort, I’m working with wikis with over 60,000 tiddlers > without issues, so it’s not an intrinsic problem with the number of > tiddlers. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy > > On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:53, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki < > tiddl...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > 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 tiddl...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/2ef5aae4-83c9-411e-bb62-ad97832f6b2c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/2ef5aae4-83c9-411e-bb62-ad97832f6b2c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/7601a2fd-666a-42e1-b14b-1c742081722c%40googlegroups.com.
