Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 330370 - TableViewer is too slow
Summary: TableViewer is too slow
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 313291
Alias: None
Product: RAP
Classification: RT
Component: RWT (show other bugs)
Version: 1.3   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Project Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-11-16 10:46 EST by Daria Huber CLA
Modified: 2010-11-16 11:48 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Daria Huber CLA 2010-11-16 10:46:37 EST
Build Identifier: 20100218-1602

I have a TableViewer with 20 columns and max. 100 rows in a view. Table is not virtual. If i refresh the table with new input : tableViewer.setInput(input) than the browser requieres 6-10 seconds for updating the view. 
This is only the CPU-time for updating the view on the client.  6 seconds for only 100 row is too long. For a week i a had a refresh time of 20 seconds. I speedup refreshing as follows:
1. Minimize a view with the table
2. tableView.setInput
3. Restore the view with the table
And now the table need for refreshing only 6 -10 sec. It's an improvement of 50%. But still too slowly.
I have a PC with DualCore 2.4 Ghz and 2 GB RAM. My RAP Application is deployed on the tomcat which is on separate server. I use Firefox 3.6.12. 

The same source code as RCP application needs < 1 sec for refreshing the table view. Is it a bug?

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Tim Buschtoens CLA 2010-11-16 11:05:28 EST
Hm. Also using Firefox 3.6.12 on an Intel Core i5 2.4 GHZ to create 100 rows with 20 columns (non-virtual) needs about 2 seconds. Check if you need as long with the controls demo. 

(Its online here: http://rap.eclipsesource.com/rapdemo/business?startup=controls)

- goto "Table"
- set "Columns" to 20
- "clear all"
- "add" 100 items
Comment 2 Ralf Sternberg CLA 2010-11-16 11:48:43 EST
This problem has already been reported in bug 313291.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 313291 ***