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

Tom,
No, I did not compile from source.  I just repackaged the RPM binaries 
into the Slackware package format for installation.

I assume you are talking about Patrick Volkerding, the Slackware guru.  
I am not sure what his position is with the Slackware organization.  He 
was very sick a few years ago and he may be cutting back.  Slackware is 
still not bundling *Office in their Linux distros.  It is a long story, 
but I am not using the latest and greatest Slackware, so I am pretty 
much on my own for the latest packages.  That is why I package my own 
Slackware packages.  Besides, it takes hours to compile OOo/LO.  I would 
rather just re-package the binaries.  I might note that I have done so 
for many years, since about OOo 2.4, without any known problems with the 
binaries - until AOO 3.4.0.

As far as compiling from Source goes, I tried that with OOo (AOO?) 3.4.0 
and it was a disaster. Apache has dependency requirements that are, 
again, too new for my older versions.  They even tossed GNU make for yet 
another make: "dmake", which looks like another PHD thesis result - not 
a major improvement on GNU make.  For instance, they now require a newer 
glibc than I have.  Since just about every piece of Linux software 
depends on glibc, the core library, I was not willing to bring my system 
down when something went wrong with the new glibc interface, just to be 
able to update AOO.  That was the main reason I switched to LO.  This 
latest version of LO (3.5.3.2) still runs with my older glibc.  IMHO, 
that was a smart move on the Document Foundation's part.  I could go on 
and on, but I digress.

Thanks for the help.
Girvin



Tom Davies wrote:
> 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