width of the textarea is too large (after reply), posted by Heiko Scheit on Mon Aug 4 14:02:52 2003
|
The width of the textarea after pressing reply is too large.
The problem is that the algorithm that searches for the longes line
looks for the next '\r' which it does not find and therefore takes the
|
Re: width of the textarea is too large (after reply), posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Sep 5 17:17:03 2003
|
> The width of the textarea after pressing reply is too large.
> The problem is that the algorithm that searches for the longes line
> looks for the next '\r' which it does not find and therefore takes the
|
|
Re: problem with boolean attributes, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Sep 5 17:19:11 2003
|
> Boolean attributes were not displayed correctly in version 2.3.9.
> Patch is attached.
|
speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Heiko Scheit on Wed Nov 12 12:25:44 2003 
|
This is not really a bug, but elogd was getting really slow with our
logbook. It took about 4 1/2 seconds just to get the default page in
threaded mode with 15 entries. The logbook has in total about 2000
|
|
Re: speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Nov 12 12:34:02 2003
|
This is a very nice measurement you made and helps me a lot. I will
incorporte your suggestions into the next version. Under Windows however,
there is no -HUP signal, so that won't work for them. But what I can easily
|
|
Re: speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Nov 20 17:55:57 2003
|
I implemented the new scheme where
- under Windows, the configuration is only checked once every access
|
Re: speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Etienne Van Caillie on Mon Nov 24 10:25:10 2003
|
> I implemented the new scheme where
>
> - under Windows, the configuration is only checked once every access
|
|
speeding up elog : gcc compile optimizations, posted by Fred Hooper on Tue Jul 27 18:33:52 2004
|
Elog is a great program, but it can be slow.
I noticed that the gcc compiler options in the tarball Makefile were not
|