On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 17:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:29:30 -0500, Jerry Amundson wrote: > > > On 8/10/08, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:21:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > > >> > > > With the older bugzilla, one also encountered those time-outs when > > >> > > > using machines with less than 2 GHz clock rates. With the new > > >> > > > bugzilla, the requirement for processor power has increased a lot. > > >> > > > > >> > > Processor power in the *client*? > > >> > > > >> > Yes. > > >> > > >> It's a web interface to a database. Is the database bigger or more > > >> complex than Expedia or Travelocity or Amazon? Does the interaction > > >> require more complex Javascript than Google Docs? I don't get it. > > > > > > It's not the database size. It's the complexity of the dynamic search > > > form. Multiple thousands of package names per several product versions, > > > for example. > > > > I'll venture to guess that Expedia and Travelocity and Amazon have > > complex searches. ;-) > > You don't understand. I don't refer the searching, but the web forms > and the client-side processing power that is needed to build them > dynamically with Ajax. > > > There's more to it. Non-optimized code or SQL? Hardware? OS tuning? > > We're talking past eachother. The problems with bugzilla are on the > _client_. > It seems that it would make more sense in this situation to have a auto complete box rather then a list box. That would keep the client very minimal at a small server time expense. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
