Am 10.10.2010 23:28, schrieb Baz Walter:
On 10/10/10 18:39, Knacktus wrote:
Those results are very interesting! Thanks.
Just to confirm: You had 5000 items and to expand the whole tree took
only 0.67 seconds? Also, only 1 call to parent().
Now, that makes my wonder and hope. The main
Hi everyone,
a little update of my observations so far for the interested:
The flatter the tree, the better the performance. I've done some tests
with 10 children per parent. Now, that looks much better. For 10
items expanding all takes about 30 seconds.
Cheers,
Jan
On 10/10/10 15:43, Knacktus wrote:
Hi everyone,
a little update of my observations so far for the interested:
The flatter the tree, the better the performance. I've done some tests
with 10 children per parent. Now, that looks much better. For 10
items expanding all takes about 30 seconds.
Am 10.10.2010 18:39, schrieb Baz Walter:
On 10/10/10 15:43, Knacktus wrote:
Hi everyone,
a little update of my observations so far for the interested:
The flatter the tree, the better the performance. I've done some tests
with 10 children per parent. Now, that looks much better. For 10
On 10/10/10 18:39, Knacktus wrote:
Those results are very interesting! Thanks.
Just to confirm: You had 5000 items and to expand the whole tree took
only 0.67 seconds? Also, only 1 call to parent().
Now, that makes my wonder and hope. The main differences are that I'm on
Windows 7 and I'm using
