3 ms·

Might be a nasty pill to swallow, but in most cases, populating a grid with 2000+ bindings is in the area I'd call bad UI. However, I don't think that the perf

by fein 11y ago

Might be a nasty pill to swallow, but in most cases, populating a grid with 2000+ bindings is in the area I'd call bad UI. However, I don't think that the performance hit you would take would be that noticeable depending on the implementation. Here's a jsperf test that can demonstrate angular performance with 10k watchers: http://jsperf.com/angularjs-digest/72 http://jsperf.com/angularjs-digest/72 Chrome 45 gave me about 3.2k ops/sec

DougWebb 11y ago
Might be a nasty pill to swallow, but in most cases, populating a grid with 2000+ bindings is in the area I'd call bad UI. Totally agree, but my business is auto-generating fully-featured applications based on database schema inspection and a code-generation wizard, for clients with large enterprise databases. So the app has to work reasonably well with out-of-the-box generation before we start tweaking it to customize and improve the UI for the most important tables and most common workflows. Thanks for the jsperf test. It's good to know the range of results for different browsers. Our app needs to run on everything, including Mobile browsers, and that test proves that we can't get away with using the typical Bootstrap responsive "hide some columns for xs" approach. We need to not generate markup for most of the columns at all. That means we're going to have to enhance our generation wizard to let us specify, per-table, device-size-specific column lists instead of just a single column list.