Is the portal filtered? If you could post the file, or a clone, or better describe the relationships, the portal setup/calculations, and total number of records involved, more people could help.
Thanks Steve. The portal isn't filtered, but it is sorted by a serial number for each record. It is a simple relationship between the portal records and that layout- nothing fancy at all. Its all very standard stuff, including default settings for the portals. This happens when the database only has a few records in it, and only a few records in the portal.
We are looking into some alternatives- I just figured I'd ask before we wasted too much time. Do you think it is possible that the number of objects in the layout could be playing a role here? Thanks!
Sorting values is always going to add to the "processing load" and will be a function of the number of items to sort.
From my college days, time required for "good" sorts are a function proportional to NLogN where N is the number of items to sort. That's better than "bad" sorts that are proportional to N * N. (If you plot the time versus these expressions you see that both rapidly grow as N increases, NlogN not as fast as N*N, but still not a linear function.)
So it does not surprise me to read that you see a slow down as the number of sorted portal records increase.
Thanks, I hear you. It is just odd that it didn't happen to us in FMGo13, and we didn't change anything. I'm beginning to wonder about a corrupted layout or something. I'll ping you offline.
It's possible the layout or the layout objects could be the issue. Try creating a completely new simple layout with a theme from your current version, and just put on the layout what is needed. Then see if you have any better performance. Can you also post the script
Sorts do present performance problems; but you can do things that make them worse!
One possibility is that the sort order you are dealing with is not quite the right one.
Example: the portal used to be based on a different TO, and you copied the portal, modified its contents, and associated it with a different table occurrence. But the sort order still points to the "old" table occurrence.
So check the sort order very carefully; or re-set it to be absolutely sure it is the correct one.