J
Jon
I have a paged datagrid that does not autogenerate its columns. The
resultset coming back from the server is about 600 rows (12 columns per
row), 15 rows are displayed per page. I return the data as a dataset to the
grid's datasource and then call the databind method.
It takes about 8 seconds to return the rows from SQL server using Query
Analyzer. It takes the grid page about 50 seconds to refresh and display
the next page when clicked on. 600 rows hardly seems like a lot of data to
slow it down that much. The viewstate also doesn't seem huge...the
resulting HTML that is sent to the client's browser is only about 38 KB, so
transfer time is not the issue, either. Is the grid really so unoptimized
that dividing 600 rows into pages and displaying one of htose pages should
take almost a minute?
What can I do to optimize this? Should I do paging with a stored procedure
and only return the set of rows to display to the grid? Should I not use a
dataset, is there a better data collection to use?
Thanks for any ideas
resultset coming back from the server is about 600 rows (12 columns per
row), 15 rows are displayed per page. I return the data as a dataset to the
grid's datasource and then call the databind method.
It takes about 8 seconds to return the rows from SQL server using Query
Analyzer. It takes the grid page about 50 seconds to refresh and display
the next page when clicked on. 600 rows hardly seems like a lot of data to
slow it down that much. The viewstate also doesn't seem huge...the
resulting HTML that is sent to the client's browser is only about 38 KB, so
transfer time is not the issue, either. Is the grid really so unoptimized
that dividing 600 rows into pages and displaying one of htose pages should
take almost a minute?
What can I do to optimize this? Should I do paging with a stored procedure
and only return the set of rows to display to the grid? Should I not use a
dataset, is there a better data collection to use?
Thanks for any ideas