Peter,
I appreciate the note. However, I'm already doing that and am instead interested in implementing a non-nested version as I am inclined to believe it will provide more optimized & efficient results. Rob Stote's e-mail earlier today showed a ~6% cut in processing time:
RESULTS FOR CALLED TABLES: 703 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 328ms/page 640 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 289ms/page 703 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 320ms/page 656 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 312ms/page 625 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 297ms/page AVRG: 309.2ms/page
RESULTS FOR NESTED TABLES: 766 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 312ms/page 609 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 281ms/page 688 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 312ms/page 609 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 281ms/page 641 [main] DEBUG RenderPDF - Avg render time: 305ms/page AVRG: 298.2ms/page
I realize this is somewhat subjective & limited testing (there may be correlations to platform, as well as other processes running), but I am looking for the most efficient solution possible. From my experience with Netscape and other web browsers (a different beast to be sure!) nested tables tend to exhibit significant load increases as tables are nested deeper & deeper.
Thank you again for the note (and the code!)
Respectfully,
Web Maestro Clay
Peter Solberg wrote:
You can achieve this table layout by using nested tables...
-- Clay Leeds - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
