|
| Re: TreeViewer VERY SLOW (IE7 and FireFox) [message #89273 is a reply to message #89067] |
Wed, 21 May 2008 18:55   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: rherrmann.innoopract.com
Markus,
sorry to hear that. Usually VIRTUAL could help, but if that's not an
option... Personally I doubt that it is useful for the user to be
confronted with 240 or so items. Is there maybe a way to reduce the
overall number of items shown at once?
I am aware that the yoxos ondemand service
(http://ondemand.yoxos.com) deals with fairly large trees as well,
but I haven't heard of such grave performance problems.
We currently don't plan to optimize the Tree. The client-side Tree
implementation (a standard qooxdoo widget) uses DOM nodes for each
TreeItem, whereas the Table (our own implementation) only holds DOM
nodes for as many rows as visible. These Table-Rows then change
their content whenever the user scrolls the TableItems.
This is probably the main reason for the difference in performance.
Cheers,
Rüdiger
Markus Krüger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that the TreeViewer is very slow. I created one using three
> levels, and the last level contains 240 elements. The tree has 4 columns,
> but only fills the last three columns for the last level. If I expand the
> tree in IE7 it takes about 13sec until my items are visible, in Firefox
> about 9sec. This is unacceptable. Doing the same with a TableViewer for the
> last level only (240 element and same columns to fill) is much faster (total
> duration IE7 about 2sec, Firefox about 1sec).
> Using the style SWT.Virtual is not an option for me.
>
> Why does the TreeViewer takes so much longer?
>
> Is it planned to be optimized?
>
> Regards,
> Markus Krüger
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: TreeViewer VERY SLOW (IE7 and FireFox) [message #89289 is a reply to message #89273] |
Wed, 21 May 2008 19:29 |
 Torge Kummerow
Messages: 26
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
I posted this earlier and its a severe problem!
Virtual is not helping a bit. only causes strange scrolling problems for me.
You really should optimize it. My IE7 is working ages at 100% CPU do display
my trees, annoying me with "script is taking too long, cancel?" messages.
Greetings,
Torge.
"Rüdiger Herrmann" <rherrmann@innoopract.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g11r7t$41u$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Markus,
>
> sorry to hear that. Usually VIRTUAL could help, but if that's not an
> option... Personally I doubt that it is useful for the user to be
> confronted with 240 or so items. Is there maybe a way to reduce the
> overall number of items shown at once?
>
> I am aware that the yoxos ondemand service
> (http://ondemand.yoxos.com) deals with fairly large trees as well,
> but I haven't heard of such grave performance problems.
>
> We currently don't plan to optimize the Tree. The client-side Tree
> implementation (a standard qooxdoo widget) uses DOM nodes for each
> TreeItem, whereas the Table (our own implementation) only holds DOM nodes
> for as many rows as visible. These Table-Rows then change their content
> whenever the user scrolls the TableItems.
> This is probably the main reason for the difference in performance.
>
> Cheers,
> Rüdiger
>
>
> Markus Krüger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that the TreeViewer is very slow. I created one using three
>> levels, and the last level contains 240 elements. The tree has 4 columns,
>> but only fills the last three columns for the last level. If I expand the
>> tree in IE7 it takes about 13sec until my items are visible, in Firefox
>> about 9sec. This is unacceptable. Doing the same with a TableViewer for
>> the last level only (240 element and same columns to fill) is much faster
>> (total duration IE7 about 2sec, Firefox about 1sec).
>> Using the style SWT.Virtual is not an option for me.
>>
>> Why does the TreeViewer takes so much longer?
>>
>> Is it planned to be optimized?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Markus Krüger
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02832 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
