2 ms·
In my experience, it's the query time. Maybe it should be faster, but practically, with all the tech debt that goes into these things, it's not. I've actually e
by muzani 5y ago
In my experience, it's the query time. Maybe it should be faster, but practically, with all the tech debt that goes into these things, it's not. I've actually experimented with different sizes for a social media app (meaning it queries total reacts, shares, etc) and 15 was close to optimal.
Latency is not an issue, and neither is displaying complex information. You can pull and display 400 dummy items no problem.
Loading time for the first "page" is extra valuable - you'd want that in 200 ms or so ideally. So one trick is load 3 items, then 30 or so.
Also you have to look at actual cost. Perhaps loading an extra 15 queries on the home screen costs $0.0004, but when you have 1m daily active home page uses, that's an extra $400 per day. In unoptimized pieces of code, the cost could well be 20x higher.
If you have a very high average user value like Jira, that's fine. But for say, a free manga site or something like imdb, you want to shave off costs wherever possible.
- quiffledwerg 5y agoNone of that is valid excuse for not giving me the option of 300/500/1000 rows.
- Someone 5y agoCosts are, especially on free sites. Also, giving you more results may decrease performance for others. There’s also the fact that the best UI gives you want you want, not what you say you want. They could have tested this, and have seen that even users who say they want 1000 rows never look past the 100th or often turn away before the longer page is loaded (That’s the kind of analysis that can lead to lazily loading more data/infinite scroll) They also may think they already have site functionality that is better for the use case users say they need 1000 rows for, such as an advanced search facility.