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
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.