Whoops. I missed the part about it running in interpreted mode. So please disregard my comments about .4DZ.
Tom Benedict > On Apr 10, 2020, at 08:02, Tom Benedict via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2020, at 07:28, 4dinug via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: > >> >> So, my conclusion is that converting the database to a v18 project database >> is the performance killer. Which is mildly annoying, because the project >> database >format was a most significant reason why I wanted to upgrade, >> since it is a really appealing feature. But apparently it still has some >> major flaws. >> > > One thing that Is different between a built Project database and a built > Binary database is that the Project Build generates a .4DZ package, rather > than a .4DC. I’m wondering if that zipped package is the source of the > problem. > > BTW, is performance good once the 10-15 minutes of startup finishes? > >> So, now knowing that the project database aspect is the problem, is it worth >> reporting a bug? Or would it be best to just wait for a few more iterations >> of v18 for >this feature to mature? > > Please report it. This would be worthwhile to sort out sooner rather than > later. > > Tom Benedict ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
