Huh. I just noticed that when I comment out the line that calls
enableAutoUpdate(), auto-update still happens. This tells me I'm
doing something wrong. Any ideas?
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "whatabrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Replacing the dataProvider isn't the best option for my particular
> application, since requests to add rows will come in at random
> intervals, and I don't want to lose selection state and such.
>
> So I've written the code such that, if two add requests happen
within
> 300ms of each other, I call disableAutoUpdate. If, after that,
500ms
> go by with no add requests, I call enableAutoUpdate().
>
> But now, adding 1000 rows takes just as long as before. With the
tree
> collapsed (or with a regular DataGrid), it takes 1 second. With the
> tree opened, it takes 8, with or without auto-update.
>
> Any idea why this might be? I can switch to replacing the
> dataProvider and only running this optimization when the app first
> loads, but I'd rather not.
>
> More information: The dataProvider is a subclass of
ArrayCollection,
> which contains objects with a "children" member, which is another
> ArrayCollection.
>
>
> private var m_lastAdd:Number = 0;
> private var m_autoUpdateEnabled:Boolean = true;
>
> // This is called 1000 times
> private function AddItem(name:String):void
> {
> var now:Number = (new Date()).getTime();
> if (m_autoUpdateEnabled && (now - m_lastAdd < 300))
> {
> gridData.disableAutoUpdate();
> m_autoUpdateEnabled = false;
> setTimeout(flushAddQueue, 500);
> }
> m_lastAdd = now;
> [Then call the add function, which puts items into the 0th group]
> }
>
> private function flushAddQueue():void
> {
> if (!m_autoUpdateEnabled && ((new Date()).getTime() - m_lastAdd <
> 300))
> {
> gridData.enableAutoUpdate();
> m_autoUpdateEnabled = true;
> }
> else
> setTimeout(flushAddQueue, 500);
> }
>
>
>
> Thanks for all your help so far!
>
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Gold" <danielggold@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've seen a lot of posts with performance related to using
Bindable
> > Collections like that. One of the dangerous of having such a
useful
> easy API
> > for updating controls...
> >
> > Just to expand on what Alex is suggesting, suppose your service
> call returns
> > to a function called updateData, and your control is bound to a
> _data
> > ArrayCollection
> >
> > public function updateData(newData:IList):void
> > {
> > var newData:Array =[];
> > for each(var data:Object in IList)
> > {
> > _newData.push(data);
> > }
> > _data.source = newData;
> > _data.refresh();
> > }
> >
> > That's an extremely basic code example, and actually unnecessary
to
> loop
> > like that in most cases, but basic principle is get your data
> structured in
> > an Array or similar structure, add new items, remove old
> unnecessary items,
> > whatever you need to do, concat or replace the source Array of
your
> > ArrayCollection, and then call refresh which will dispatch a
> > COLLECTION_CHANGE event which will trigger any controls using it
as
> a
> > dataProvider to update.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@> wrote:
> >
> > > There is enable/disableAutoUpdate, but adding rows one at a
> time is
> > > inefficient. Just concat the two arrays and replace the
> dataprovider
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> > > Behalf Of *whatabrain
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:23 PM
> > > *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> > > *Subject:* [flexcoders] How to temporarily stop a dataProvider
> from
> > > updating UI
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've found that adding a lot of rows (1000+) to an
> AdvancedDataGrid can
> > > be quite slow, if the rows happen to be visible (in an open
node
> of the
> > > tree). I don't know why this is the case, especially since it's
> not the
> > > case in a regular DataGrid, but I'd like to work around it.
> > >
> > > So how can I tell the AdvancedDataGrid to temporarily ignore
> updates to
> > > the dataProvider? Once the large number of rows have been
added,
> I'll
> > > turn the automatic updating back on, for the slow trickle of
> updates
> > > that come after that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
