Mark, To fully address your experience consider if you can show or share the wiki. Alternativy share some test data of an equivalent size. Also consider it from a "what must it render perspective". If for example the tiddlers were all listed in the table of contents and this is displayed in the sidebar this will refresh every change that may effect that toc list. Hide the side bar and see if its the same.
I had 12Mb files working well in TiddlyWiki Classic, so it should be good in TW5 In an App I built there was a considerable difference with 5.1.20 however be warned there was an accidental leaving on of "Performance instrumentation", see Control Panel > Settings > Performance instrumentation - uncheck save and reload. Also a normal search that is activated for any three letter combination and lists the result below may just be inappropriate for such an application. Perhaps you need a enter search criteria then hit a search button, which renders the results in a list, rather than an instant response popup/list. There is also a little gotcha with browser memory. Try with nothing else open by or in a tab of the browser and see if it improves, this will give us a clue to its bottle necks. Browsers also have a maximum memory usage set so they do not overpower the device/computer but this is often a fixed value, when you mostly work in the browser there is value making more ram available to the browser especially if you have 8-16GB available. The more you share the more we can help. Regards Tony On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:19:37 PM UTC+10, Mark S. wrote: > > My project may have been over ambitious. But I thought there were going to > be some > improvements in 5.1.20+ that would allow for larger TW files. I currently > have a TW file > with about 36,000 short dictionary definitions. Each tiddler consists only > of a title > and a field, EN, with usually only 3 or four words in it. The overall size > is only 10 megs. > > Overall, the performance is impracticably slow. Ten seconds to open a > tiddler. 20 seconds or more > to do a simple search box search. As much as 25 seconds or more to close > out tiddlers that > need to render a custom search. In most cases, you have to type blind > because the > keystroke refresh is also incredibly slow. > > I'm wondering if the performance improvements actually made it into the > core, or if > my expectations were too high. Actually, the performance noticeably > declined > after the first 12,000 entries. > > At the moment it seems like I need to start over, using a data dictionary > instead of > tiddlers for storage. > > Firefox, Windows 7, TW 5.1.21 > > Thanks! > Mark > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1b52c64f-6798-4799-b2a9-b839fb5afe4f%40googlegroups.com.
