That felt really weird to wake up and see something called NotoGifford...I 
expect royalties... :-)

On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 8:52:57 AM UTC-5 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

> Mark & Saq
> FWIW, I put on-line two example wiki. * First version works fine on my 
> machine ... * Has 136 items * Half at Level 1 * Half at Level 2 ...
> * Second version was fine at First but once entries (splits) reached about 
> 300 it got sluggish. * ... And if you make too many items you may get 
> browser freeze up.
> * Has 498 items * 68 at Level 1 * 430 at Level 2. I stopped splitting 
> further on Gifford's list just before MindMapping item. That is about half 
> way through the list. Will take time to load ...
> Best wishes
> TT
> On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 15:09:21 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote:
>> I imagine the performance hit comes from the way that hiding fold levels 
>> occurs. The method I used to structure the document was meant to be highly 
>> portable. So you can port all the tiddlers and the tag tiddler to any 
>> tiddler, and view them correctly using the <<toc>> macro and nothing else. 
>> And any time you want to change the order of tiddlers, you can do so using 
>> the tag pill. But, perhaps, I focused too narrowly on an unimportant goal 
>> ;-)
>> Possibly if there was a mode where fold-levels were turned off 
>> performance would improve. People could turn off folding in order to 
>> performance intensive activities and then turn it back on later for viewing.
>> Thanks!
>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 1:37:11 AM UTC-7, Saq Imtiaz wrote:
>>> @TT could you post the document with TiddlyToolmap imported? I have a 
>>> suspicion about where the performance hit on editing is coming from and 
>>> comparing side by side to Streams (in which I have Tiddly toolmap imported) 
>>> will be a quick way to check if I'm on the right track... Without having to 
>>> dive into code.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to