Hi Stefan, if you want to say that using the old mail merge wizard instead of the new one will "solve" the performance issues: you are cheating!
Ciao, Mathias Stefan Baltzer schrieb: > Hi, Sophie, Mathias and all! > > Please note > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=89795 > "Make small mailmerge accessible within the mail merge wizard" > > At first glance, this looks like a "cheap interim solution" to me. > > Mathias, Sophie, I put you on CC of that one. > > Regards, > Stefan Baltzer > QA Writer > > Mathias Bauer wrote: >> Hi Sophie, >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> Hi Oliver, all, >>> >>> I would like to have some information on the delay needed to correct or >>> enhance >>> performance issues for mailmerge in Writer. Please note : I'm not asking >>> for a >>> solution in the next minutes :) >>> This is a real blocker for a lot of companies especially the ones that have >>> a >>> quite important human resources department where mailings to all employees >>> are >>> often requested and I need to give them an answer (or a hope ;). >>> >>> The first issue I'm talking about is this one, handled by Oliver : >>> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=40827 >>> For several companies where it was possible, we have seen that disabling >>> Header&Footer for page style will help. Using the Mailmerge wizard makes the >>> merge process a bit faster also, but it is still unusable with more than 700 >>> records. >>> >>> If I look at the wiki page, there is in the todo a refactoring part, is it >>> this >>> part that will help to correct it and if yes, is it a long term (3.6) or mid >>> term (3.1)? Is there anywhere else I should look to get more info? >> >> The refactoring is not influencing this problem directly. >> >> According to Oliver the problem is that we can't clone documents in >> memory and so we have to store the document and load it again and again >> for each and every mail. >> >> We already have talked about that and I'm not convinced that the >> in-memory-cloning is impossible. I agree with you that "OOoLater" is the >> wrong target. The problem is severe enough to deserve at least a "3.x" >> target. Some simple math tells me that mail merge performance is >> unacceptable for every non-trivial document. >> >> I heard from Oliver that he doubts that we can fix it in a reasonable >> time frame - but IMHO this has to be proven (not guessed) before we turn >> it down. So at least a close investigation should be done. As it looks >> we can't do that for 3.0 but perhaps not too far away. >> >> It would be nice to know whether the n load times for n mails are the >> only major performance problem here. Perhaps someone could take the mail >> merge document, measure the time for the mail merge, measure the time >> for loading the document and storing it (at best an average value taken >> from several load procedures) and compares how much loading contributes >> to the bad performance. >> >> Best regards, >> Mathias >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
