Interesting - we just got an OutOfMemoryException and sluggish performance in our application when we were rendering 4000+ Data rows in a datatable. It is a tiles page, too, but Thomas was attributing that to the new ExtensionsFilter (which is a great idea, don't take my statement as an offense, it is probably just not built with performance in mind) which converts the response to a string and does substring searching and replacement...
interesting that it should be tiles according to your experience.. I would love to hear what Thomas has to say about that! regards, Martin On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:33:53 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heath, > > We once had a problem with large tables in IE but this was with > Struts. The problem seemed to be with the <logic:iterate> tag. We > resolved it by using a little known Tiles feature called > TilesController. In our case we were using Tiles but I don't think > that was really the problem, I think it was the iterrate tag b/c it > was fine once we switched to the TilesController. > > We still have problems with huge tables (5,000 -15,000 rows). So we > limit the results to 3,000 rows and inform the user. Eventually we > will replace with one of the faces components for paging through large > result sets .... > > I can't imagine why Tiles would make a difference. Yeah its doing a > server-side include but so what? The only thing I can think of is > that with Tiles and JSF you need to use subviews. I'm not expert > enough on JSF to say what is going on there but my guess is that there > is more overhead with the use of <subview>. Each row in your 500 row > table is ultimate bound to some component so any extra steps taken due > to subview will be magnified greatly. > > As an experiment, try making the <view> start in the tile page > containing your report. See if it runs faster. > > I'm interested in hearing about what you come up with. We use Tiles > extensively in our Struts applications and I'd hate to abandon them in > order to use JSF. (Although smaller tables is probably the ultimate > solution here.) > > Regards, > sean > > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:19:25 -0600, Heath Borders > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For some reason, our pages that use Tiles don't perform anywhere near > > as well as those that don't use tiles. > > > > I've been trying to figure out the performance issues, but I'm stuck. > > > > I've basically taken all of the code out of our layouts, so that all > > of the same layouts are getting called, but there is no code in them > > but the includes I need. > > > > The performance problem is really only an issue when we need to render > > large (500+ rows) tables on a particular page. It takes the page up > > to a minute to load in IE 6 using tiles, but the load is almost > > instantaneous without tiles. > > > > Obviously, for developer productivity and maintainability, we really > > love Tiles and want to continue using it, but we can't ignore these > > performance issues. > > > > Does anyone have any ideas? > > > > -- > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
