You're probably running into something similar to this: http://ideamill.synaptrixgroup.com/?p=14
Try adding style="display:none;" to those TDs before the browser gets them. With any luck IE will ignore them rather than try to rebuild the entire CSS object every time you add them to the DOM. Once you have the rows attached you can make them visible again. I tried TD, TR, TBODY and TABLE, and TD seemed to make the biggest difference. FWIW On 8/7/07, Josh Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, I feel stupid. it's not the join that's taking so long, it's > the $( "really big DOM string with 1,000 rows and 3 columns") that > takes so dang long on IE7. After all of this rambling, does anyone > have any options for me to try? > > Sorry, for the self-dialog here. > -Josh > > On Aug 7, 8:42 pm, Josh Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, FF2 performance is great at 500-600ms. IE7 is struggling with a > > join of 1,000 elements to the tune of 70,000 ms! > > Each array element contains a string, something like '<tr><td>1</ > > td><td>2</td></tr>' > > > > Any advice is greatly appreciated. I still feel like a noob in > > javascript sometimes. :( > > > > Josh > > > > On Aug 7, 3:40 pm, Josh Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm working on a project that makes a web service call and pulls back > > > data. Sometimes that data can be 1,000ish rows. What is the fastest > > > way that I can create those rows? Right now I'm just doing string > > > concatenation to make HTML and passing that to the .append method. I > > > read the other day where someone(Klaus?) said that array.join was a > > > faster way to do string concatenation. > > > > > I'd like to avoid the string concats all together if there is a faster > > > method. I'm just poking around for ideas. > > > > > Thanks > > > Josh > >
