myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Heath Borders <heath.bord...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tiles Performance
Date Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:46:10 GMT
The problem turned out to be a javascript function embedded in one of
our layouts that iterated through all of the elements in the page.

This obviously causes problems when you have a table with a few hundred rows.

As I suspected, it wasn't Tiles; it was the way we were using Tiles.


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:41:15 -0600, Heath Borders
<heath.borders@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, i did make the view start in the tile page and it went a lot faster.
> 
> I thought maybe tiles was flushing content to the browser early
> somewhere and that maybe this was making things more complicated for
> IE.
> 
> However, I was able to put all of the code for the Tiles inside my
> Tiled page and the performance was the same, which means its just
> something we're doing inside the layouts (hopefully).
> 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:33:53 -0500, Sean Schofield
> <sean.schofield@gmail.com> 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
> > <heath.borders@gmail.com> 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
> > > hborders@mail.win.org
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> -Heath Borders-Wing
> hborders@mail.win.org
> 


-- 
-Heath Borders-Wing
hborders@mail.win.org

Mime
View raw message