|
| | | StrataFrame Novice
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/17/2008 2:16:05 AM
Posts: 54, Visits: 249 |
| | I'm running my application with F5 bulid in VS I try with ctrl + F5 and I load my 20 000 records in 20 seconds David |
| |
| | | 
StrataFrame Developer
Group: StrataFrame Developers
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:08:30 PM
Posts: 4,811, Visits: 4,781 |
| | You could probably still improve on the performance...but there is a vast difference between 20 seconds and 4-5 minutes. |
| |
| | | StrataFrame User
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 11/19/2008 9:55:09 AM
Posts: 170, Visits: 410 |
| | Yes, 20 seconds is better and you should be able to get faster. The debugger is causing the delay. Are you happy with 20 seconds? |
| |
| | | StrataFrame Novice
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/17/2008 2:16:05 AM
Posts: 54, Visits: 249 |
| Sure it's better but it seems a little bit to long for my boss
I'll search to improve my code. |
| |
| | | StrataFrame User
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 11/19/2008 9:55:09 AM
Posts: 170, Visits: 410 |
| | I would check how long it takes to simply execute the SQL query inside SQL Server Management Studio. If the query isn't optimized or if the SQL Server engine itself is slow there is little you will do in code. There are many factors outside of your code that can affect the performance as you can see from the significant performance drop when using the debugger. But 20 seconds is better than 4 minutes. |
| |
| | |
StrataFrame Developer
Group: StrataFrame Developers
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:08:30 PM
Posts: 4,811, Visits: 4,781 |
| | Aaron is right on the money here. You first need to see where your bottleneck is. The very first thing that you would need to do is open up SQL Server Management STudio and turn on the profile timings (SET STATISTICS TIME ON) and see how long it takes to execute the query and return the result set. Then go from there. |
| |
| | | StrataFrame Novice
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/17/2008 2:16:05 AM
Posts: 54, Visits: 249 |
| | Hello, I made tests yesterday with Michel. We found the cause of the slow loading of my records. We made tests with a win grid classic instead of a Infragistics grid and the time of loading is 270 ms for 20 000 records ! It's quite better  I'm impressed ! I did tests with a database with 433 000 records this morning and the result is 7.2 sec. So, according to Michel and I, the problem comes from the Infragistics grid. I downloaded a trial version (NetAdvantage for .NET 2008 Vol. 2 : Bundle [.NET 3.0]) Could it be possible that the slow loading is due to the version ? David |
| |
| | | StrataFrame User
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 11/19/2008 9:55:09 AM
Posts: 170, Visits: 410 |
| Could it be possible that the slow loading is due to the version ? I have used Infragistics grids for many years and I don't recall noticing any performance changes between versions. There is no doubt that an Infragistics grid has much more power and features over the built-in Windows grid and this should translate to slower initialization. However, I have never tried the simple windows grid as I need the Infragistics features and don't have speed issues. I would suggest you check which features you have turned on in the Infragistics grid - try turning off as many advanced features that you can to bring it down to the same level as the windows grid. Also, take a look at the Infragistics grid code in the form Designer file as I have seen the UltraGrid Designer put unnecessary code in here if a lot of changes have been made. I remember being able to remove about 100 lines of initialization code that the designer had inserted which effectively cancelled each other out - the code was simply unnecessary. Now that you know the SF BBS is not the cause and that the windows grid is faster, I would recommend posting a message on the Infragistics technical forum as well. They may be able to give you an insight into why the two grids perform differently. Aaron |
| |
| | |
StrataFrame Developer
Group: StrataFrame Developers
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:08:30 PM
Posts: 4,811, Visits: 4,781 |
| | I am on-board with what Aaron is say as we too use the Infragistics grid in our medical software...though sparingly. There are in the neighborhood of 3000 properties (or more) on the Infragistics grid...which is insane and frustrating. In fact, we found a property the other day that sped up performance on something that we were doing...if I could recall what it was I would tell you, but I don't think this particular property would affect what you are trying to do. This is one reason that we are very careful on using too many 3rd party tools and we, like you, spend a good amount of time testing performance and optimization, which definitely pays off in the long run. I am sorry that I cannot be more help with the Infragistics grid...if you get a chance, you may throw a post out on their forum and see if they have any ideas. |
| |
| | |
|