Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Extremely Slow Base Report Builder

Hi :)
If you are re-compiling from Rpms then why not just compile from the original source code?  Is 
Patrick still involved with packaging things for the slackware repos?  If so then he might be worth 
contacting.  Apparently he used to be very helpful and approachable.  
Regards from
Tom :)


--- On Sat, 26/5/12, Girvin R. Herr <girvin.herr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: Girvin R. Herr <girvin.herr@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Extremely Slow Base Report Builder
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Saturday, 26 May, 2012, 20:43



drew jensen wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 19:02 -0700, Girvin R. Herr wrote:
>    
> > drew jensen wrote:
> > 8><...
> >      
> > > Hi Tom
> > >
> > > Really - you seem to know a lot, are you writing a manual?
> > >
> > > @Girvin - there is no place that I've seen the report builder be that
> > > slow and not have an installation problem - not saying it is impossible
> > > but sounds really odd. 1500 records in a tabular report, 49 seconds is a
> > > long time for that actually. There is one exception to that, graphics -
> > > is your report including graphics stored in data fields?
> > >
> > > On the other hand Calc, as has been pointed out, might be your preferred
> > > path.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > //drew
> > >
> > >          
> > 8><...
> >
> > Hello Drew,
> > I understand what you are saying, but I installed the LO 3.5.2 binary (RPM) packages from the LO 
> > website.  I repackaged them for Slackware, but that does not change the 1s and 0s, just unpacks 
> > the RPMs and re-packages the files into a Slackware package for installation.  Therefore, if 
> > there is an installation problem, it seems to be in the LO packages.  Note that I am using the 
> > Report Builder bundled into LO, not the version from the extensions website.  I do believe the 
> > newest is 1.2.1 rev 2, and the one in LO is still 1.0-something.  I have not tried to replace 
> > the bundled version with the 1.2 version.
> >
> > I could live with 49 _"seconds"_.  However, it is taking 49 _minutes_ for my report.  My 
> > database is nothing special, just text and integer values.  Nine elements plus the key per 
> > record.  No graphics.  So, yes, this problem does sound unusual.  However, I have not been able 
> > to pin down the problem yet.  In the meantime, I am looking into using Calc to print my data.  
> > It looks good and will do until I can get RB working.
> >
> > BTW: The report is a simple text page header, Detail, and page footer, no graphics there either. 
> >  I do have the date and time fields in the header, but that shouldn't bring it down.  Actually, 
> > I do have some separator lines inserted at the bottom of the header and the bottom of each 
> > Detail line.  Page number at the bottom of the footer.  That's it.
> > Thanks for the help.
> >      
> Hi Girvin
>
> Sounds like it aught to run lickity-split...hmm
>
> Anyway - looks like you are off to use Cacl.
>
> You might want to do this.
>
> When you open the data window under Calc, instead of copy/paste from the
> data grid - grad, drag and drop the actual query name from the left side
> of the data window. This will create a named range, you can set options
> on the range to _not_ save the data in the spreadsheet, jut the
> connection information...then when you open the spreadsheet again it
> will re-run the query and update the data anew..
>
> Best wishes,
>
> //drew
>    
Drew,
Yes!  Your procedure worked fine!  Thanks much.  It will make using Calc to produce my reports a 
lot more error free.  I have not tested the dynamic importation of the data yet, but even if it 
doesn't work, which I am sure it will, this procedure is much better than my copy-paste procedure.  
Another benefit of using Calc will be to save paper.  Whereas the ORB output used 94+ pages, the 
Calc output, being more compressed, even with the separation grid, produces about half that number 
- 47 pages.

Your suggestion of an installation problem causing ORB to fail for me got me thinking and I 
realized I did modify one aspect of the LO distribution package.  I moved the 2 executable files in 
"/usr/bin" to "/opt/bin".  Just in case ORB was relying on these files being in "/usr/bin", the 
first thing I did today was to restore those 2 files in "/usr/bin" and try ORB again.  No joy.  It 
is now taking 66 minutes.  However, since my last tests, I entered more data and now my database is 
1800+ records.  So that accounts for the increase in time.  Note that it does not take anywhere 
near this amount of time to import the data into Calc.  Calc does it in a few seconds, not tens of 
minutes.

Thanks very much for your help.
Girvin


-- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@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


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@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