Sorry for cluttering the group... I found one more detail. If, instead of disabling auto-update on the root node, I do it on the first (and currently only) child node:
gridData[0].children.disableAutoUpdate(); and don't re-enable updates, rows still get added, but only up to the limit of the AdvancedDataGrid's current scroll area. If I then collapse and expand the root, I see all the rows. If I do enable auto-update later on the child, the rows get drawn, but it takes even longer than without this trick (14 seconds instead of 8). --- In [email protected], "whatabrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Huh. I just noticed that when I comment out the line that calls > enableAutoUpdate(), auto-update still happens. This tells me I'm > doing something wrong. Any ideas? > > > > --- In [email protected], "whatabrain" <junk1@> wrote: > > > > Replacing the dataProvider isn't the best option for my particular > > application, since requests to add rows will come in at random > > intervals, and I don't want to lose selection state and such. > > > > So I've written the code such that, if two add requests happen > within > > 300ms of each other, I call disableAutoUpdate. If, after that, > 500ms > > go by with no add requests, I call enableAutoUpdate(). > > > > But now, adding 1000 rows takes just as long as before. With the > tree > > collapsed (or with a regular DataGrid), it takes 1 second. With the > > tree opened, it takes 8, with or without auto-update. > > > > Any idea why this might be? I can switch to replacing the > > dataProvider and only running this optimization when the app first > > loads, but I'd rather not. > > > > More information: The dataProvider is a subclass of > ArrayCollection, > > which contains objects with a "children" member, which is another > > ArrayCollection. > > > > > > private var m_lastAdd:Number = 0; > > private var m_autoUpdateEnabled:Boolean = true; > > > > // This is called 1000 times > > private function AddItem(name:String):void > > { > > var now:Number = (new Date()).getTime(); > > if (m_autoUpdateEnabled && (now - m_lastAdd < 300)) > > { > > gridData.disableAutoUpdate(); > > m_autoUpdateEnabled = false; > > setTimeout(flushAddQueue, 500); > > } > > m_lastAdd = now; > > [Then call the add function, which puts items into the 0th group] > > } > > > > private function flushAddQueue():void > > { > > if (!m_autoUpdateEnabled && ((new Date()).getTime() - m_lastAdd < > > 300)) > > { > > gridData.enableAutoUpdate(); > > m_autoUpdateEnabled = true; > > } > > else > > setTimeout(flushAddQueue, 500); > > } > > > > > > > > Thanks for all your help so far! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Daniel Gold" <danielggold@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I've seen a lot of posts with performance related to using > Bindable > > > Collections like that. One of the dangerous of having such a > useful > > easy API > > > for updating controls... > > > > > > Just to expand on what Alex is suggesting, suppose your service > > call returns > > > to a function called updateData, and your control is bound to a > > _data > > > ArrayCollection > > > > > > public function updateData(newData:IList):void > > > { > > > var newData:Array =[]; > > > for each(var data:Object in IList) > > > { > > > _newData.push(data); > > > } > > > _data.source = newData; > > > _data.refresh(); > > > } > > > > > > That's an extremely basic code example, and actually unnecessary > to > > loop > > > like that in most cases, but basic principle is get your data > > structured in > > > an Array or similar structure, add new items, remove old > > unnecessary items, > > > whatever you need to do, concat or replace the source Array of > your > > > ArrayCollection, and then call refresh which will dispatch a > > > COLLECTION_CHANGE event which will trigger any controls using it > as > > a > > > dataProvider to update. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@> wrote: > > > > > > > There is enable/disableAutoUpdate, but adding rows one at a > > time is > > > > inefficient. Just concat the two arrays and replace the > > dataprovider > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > > > > Behalf Of *whatabrain > > > > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:23 PM > > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > > *Subject:* [flexcoders] How to temporarily stop a dataProvider > > from > > > > updating UI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've found that adding a lot of rows (1000+) to an > > AdvancedDataGrid can > > > > be quite slow, if the rows happen to be visible (in an open > node > > of the > > > > tree). I don't know why this is the case, especially since it's > > not the > > > > case in a regular DataGrid, but I'd like to work around it. > > > > > > > > So how can I tell the AdvancedDataGrid to temporarily ignore > > updates to > > > > the dataProvider? Once the large number of rows have been > added, > > I'll > > > > turn the automatic updating back on, for the slow trickle of > > updates > > > > that come after that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
