Ironic that on your end, my code sample finishes within a couple seconds of each other between
the versions.
When you ask for another document, do you mean I can send an actual published Word document, or sample code. I will ask my chain of command about sending another. (I have to scrub the data to make it sendable.)
I re-ran just your code sample in release mode and got basically the same time differences:
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your inquiry.
Yes either the document or the actual code you are using. The actual code and document that you are using would be best and this would allow the most chance of me reproducing the issue on my side.
You can replace any sensitive information with dummy data.
Thanks,
Attached is sample code that mimics my actual document that I generate with Aspose. Testing with version 9.5 it took 137 seconds on average, while version 9.6 took 202 seconds on average.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your inquiry.
I managed to reproduce the issue on my side. I will discuss this further with the developer responsible for field update. I will keep you informed of any developments.
Thanks
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your patience.
The developer responsible for the field update engine has taken a look into your issue. He agrees there is some slow down between the older and newer verisons and has made some improvements to the field update engine. The update speed should now be faster. These fixes are avaliable in the latest version of Aspose.Words. You can download it from here.
However there are still some issues in slow down of field update related to page layout and the system which reads TTF fonts, this will be improved sometime in the future. For now I hope the increase in update speed is what you are looking for.
Thanks,
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your inquiry.
I’m afraid this feature has yet to be confirmed into any version just yet. We will inform you as soon as there are any developments.
Thanks,
Does this mean it has not been added to the queue of bugs to address in a future release of Aspose.Words, or that you can not replicate the problem on your end?
Hi
Thanks for your request. This cannot be considered as a simple bug. It is rather performance degradation caused by complicating of fields evaluation engine (more features are supported, more time is needed to process). This cannot be fixed as a simple bug, but it should be fixed step-by-step by improving field evaluation module.
We are constantly working on this. So performance should increase with each new version.
Best regards,
For records keeping on my end, does this issue have a buy number on your side? I need to document this issue on my side and bug number would be more meaningful than the number assigned to the first time I posted to this thread.