Hi

I am using the clairevoyance option on a textfield. The dropdown-list source for the textfield is a field in a related seperate file.

I created the relation of that seperate related file in the relationship graph. Everything works OK but the Type-Ahead is too slow. (1000 records in the related file)

Do I get more speed when I import the related file as another table in my database-sys.

Thanks

Not really. An external file should not act or react noticeably different than an internal table

Phil

Thanks Phil,

Is there another way to speed the 'Type-Ahead' up

Henk

how slow is it?

am using the clairevoyance option on a textfield. The dropdown-list source for the textfield is a field in a related seperate file.

I created the relation of that seperate related file in the relationship graph. Everything works OK but the Type-Ahead is too slow. (1000 records in the related file)

Shouldn't make a difference - I have 24000 and it makes no difference.

Is the field your using indexed.. or is it an unstored calc?

Filemaker takes half a second to a second to show the first suggestion and repeates that procedure every time I type the next character.

The field is indexed in the referenced file.

I had to create the same relationship in the 'Main' file, as in the referenced file to get the value-list.

(relationship graph: 2 Table occurences, one for the referenced file and another one for the related list. According to Filemaker instructions to create a valuelist from a File-reference)

Henk

No clue what your saying with the creation part, but your following the help so your probably right.

Re the second portion -- If .5-1 second is too slow, your probably better off not using the auto enter thing?

How many records are involved with this?

Lee,

About 1500 in the related file. Using 1000 for the related list.

Henk

That is not a large number of records to be affecting the [color:blue] Auto-complete speed. I suspect your problem is in the structure. Do a search for [color:blue]"Auto-complete", with the Quotes, and see if there isn't some ideas there to help.

If I remember some of the problems, they center in the indexing of the field. One thing you could try is to turn off indexing, exit the define fields edit box, and then go back and turn on the indexing for the field.

HTH

Lee

Edited June 9, 200718 yr by Guest
added index part

Thanks Lee for answering,

Sometimes you need some other input to know if you are on the right track, even when there is no solution yet. Otherwise the search for a problem becomes endless. I will try the things you suggested and search for a proper solution. I let the forum know as soon as I found one.

Thanks

On that note -- are you running this on a network or is this a local file?

Genx asks a good question -- I've found remarkable improvement on served files.

I am still in the development stage so untill now it's running local. More problems to solve I think when implementing it as the network version.

Genx asks a good question -- I've found remarkable improvement on served files.

Can you explain this please. Why would it be Faster in a served environment?

I would have understood it had you said it the other way around, figuring that heavy users traffic would have an effect on it. But, other than Hardware, I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be faster because if is being served?

Lee

Just a guess -- the creation and indexing of the value list might be done on the server, so that it's already ready when you need it. On the local version, the first time is very slow, but the second time (as long as you don't leave the layout/table) is probably as fast as the served version.

Also, it occurs to me that I usually use the type-ahead with pull-down value lists.

Lee,

I tried your suggestion to turn the field-indexing on&off. The auto-complete runs a littlebit faster now. I'll also try some experiments making the list in advance. See if that's faster.

Henk