| ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
2302
|
Fri Aug 3 15:49:05 2007 |
 | Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1903 | Boolean |
Stefan,
I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?
Thanks |
|
2303
|
Fri Aug 3 16:00:42 2007 |
 | Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1903 | Re: Boolean |
| Grant Jeffcote wrote: | | I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed? |
Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.
Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:
- 0 / 1
- no / yes
- false / true
- off /on
I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change. |
|
2304
|
Fri Aug 3 17:03:46 2007 |
| Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1903 | Re: Boolean |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Grant Jeffcote wrote: | | I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed? |
Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.
Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:
- 0 / 1
- no / yes
- false / true
- off /on
I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change. |
Stefan
Thanks for the great explanation.
What are the chances of having a choice of the four options (as mentioned in your list) somehow so that when boolean-x is used (for example) in the configuration file the applicable option text is shown in the 'Find' page?
ie.
boolean-x = 0/1
boolean-y = no / yes
boolean-z = false / true
etc.
A long shot perhaps but don't know until you ask? 
Thanks |
|
2305
|
Fri Aug 3 17:05:56 2007 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1903 | Re: Boolean |
| Grant Jeffcote wrote: | | What are the chances of having a choice of the four options (as mentioned in your list) somehow so that when boolean-x is used (for example) in the configuration file the applicable option text is shown in the 'Find' page? |
If several people will ask for it, I will put it in. |
|
2322
|
Sat Oct 6 15:39:12 2007 |
 | Arno Teunisse | A.Teeling3@chello.nl | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1890 | testing for the limit of the elog database |
Hello
To test elog i created a very large databasefile ( 071006a.log = 39MB ) via an import.
Nothing special. At the import I already got a message to increase "Max content length" to 22420822 in the global section. Below is the what i've done. There are no attachments involved, as you can see.
[global]
port = 80;
Max content length = 22420822
[DAP]
Theme = default
Attributes=Klant,Doc
Quick filter = Klant
So there are only 2 user defined fields in the database.
Everything works ......... but terrible slow : is there a rule of thumb for the size of the database ? |
|
2323
|
Sat Oct 6 15:44:51 2007 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1890 | Re: testing for the limit of the elog database |
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | So there are only 2 user defined fields in the database.
Everything works ......... but terrible slow : is there a rule of thumb for the size of the database ? |
Yes. The rule of thumb is that currently elog runs fine for a few 10000 entries. At 100000 entries it starts getting slow. I have already in my to-do list the task to improve the performance for large databases, and I have a rough idea where the bottleneck is, but I pushed the priority low because not many people have large databases right now (but it might change in the future). How many entries do you have? (It's not the size of the entries, but the number!) |
|
2324
|
Sat Oct 6 15:56:13 2007 |
| Arno Teunisse | A.Teeling3@chello.nl | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1890 | Re: testing for the limit of the elog database |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | So there are only 2 user defined fields in the database.
Everything works ......... but terrible slow : is there a rule of thumb for the size of the database ? |
Yes. The rule of thumb is that currently elog runs fine for a few 10000 entries. At 100000 entries it starts getting slow. I have already in my to-do list the task to improve the performance for large databases, and I have a rough idea where the bottleneck is, but I pushed the priority low because not many people have large databases right now (but it might change in the future). How many entries do you have? (It's not the size of the entries, but the number!) |
That's a quick answer. I just was testing. I'm trying to introduce elog at work, so i'm not having an actual database in production. In the test database I had 125386 entries. Two column: "Customers name" and "documents".
By the way : my email address has changed : how do I change that ??
Thanks |
|
2325
|
Sat Oct 6 16:11:50 2007 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1890 | Re: testing for the limit of the elog database |
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | | By the way : my email address has changed : how do I change that ?? |
Click on 'Config'. |