Re: sorting/printing speed FMP9 vs. FMP6

On May 5, 8:16 am, Martin Trautmann <t-...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> do you have any experience concerning printing speed?
>
> FMP7 and FMP8 where severely broken: PDFs where much bigger than
> required. The bug was to include font definitions again and again,
> causing file sizes with 100 times the size as required.
>
> FMP6 was working pretty well, both fast and small.
>
> I now gave FMP9 a try. The print size is ok. But the speed is
> extremely slow - both for sorting records, as well as for printing.
>
> Before I had about 2 hours for several hundred do***ents and several
> thousand pages (from > 1 M records). FMP9 used 30 hours for this task!

Is this on a solution that was simply upgraded from FM6 to FM9?
Or did you re-build and/or optimize the solution in FM9?

The architecture ****ft from FM6 to FM9 is huge. Solutions designed in
FM6 often run miserably slow in later versions of FM. In my experience
i find FM9  very fast, but you absolutely have to code for it. In FM6
inter-table operations necessitated hopping from window to window from
file to file. In FM9 for example these hops are quite costly, but also
completely unnecessary, as you can im****t all the layouts table
occurrences and scripts for a task into a single file.

The new record locking semantics can also be a source of major
performance problems. But these too are resolveable by rewriting the
problem areas with FM9 optimized code.

-cheers,
Dave