3 ms·
This is slightly what I'm thinking, for that particular use case. The idea that you're going to shove 1TB of data down to the client strikes me as slightly unh
by mumblemumble 6y ago
This is slightly what I'm thinking, for that particular use case.
The idea that you're going to shove 1TB of data down to the client strikes me as slightly unhinged. Even if we assume you can achieve a sustained transfer rate of one gigabit per second, it's going to take over 2 hours to get a terabyte shoved down to the client. I'm guessing, though, that the actual vizualization is nowhere near one terabyte. Data's going to have to be aggregated somehow, because no computer monitor can display a terabyte worth of information all at once. Even a 4K monitor would fall short by many orders of magnitude.
It would be much faster, and, I think, simpler, to keep the data on a central server, have it generate the visualizations, and push them down to the client.
- aniforprez 6y ago> The idea that you're going to shove 1TB of data down to the client strikes me as slightly unhinged Yeah which is why I asked for clarification from them because it seemed really weird to assert that as a positive for the app? > It would be much faster, and, I think, simpler, to keep the data on a central server, have it generate the visualizations, and push them down to the client. Yeah I completely agree but in this case, Mighty would have next to no advantage over just loading the visualization on your own machine. Hence, again the confusion about asserting Mighty as a means to an end
- mumblemumble 6y agoYeah, agreed. I can see Mighty as perhaps being useful as a band-aid to deal with someone else's poor, resource-hungry design. But if you're the actual app developer, I'm just not seeing a good reason why you would want to deliberately incorporate this technology into your design. Why farm the sever-side rendering out to a middleman when you could just... do server-side rendering?