Re: [patch] upgrade slickgrid

Hi

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Kleiman <mkleiman(at)pivotal(dot)io>
wrote:

> Hi Dave
>
> Have you confirmed that removing the changes we made to shorten the class
>> names used for rows and cells doesn't affect the performance or memory
>> utilisation of the grid?
>
>
> We haven't noticed any performance issues with this upgraded version of
> SlickGrid, nor our other changes to the query results grid on the branch
> that we will be submitting soon. Do you have an example of a large table
> that used to cause you performance problems?
>

Nothing specific - large tables are easily generated though. Mostly what we
had were numerous reports from users of poor performance in the query tool,
and this was one of a number of changes we've made (and are continuing to
make) to improve things. This particular change was made on the basis of
logic and math though, not testing of it on it's own. It's possible it's a
non-issue if, for example, SlickGrid is only actually keeping a small fixed
number of rows in the DOM at any one time. Either way, I'd like to confirm
the change won't cause a performance regression before applying.

>
> Also... would this be an appropriate time to remove the embedded libraries
>> altogether, and move to npm/yarn installations of them?
>
>
> I think that would be a great idea. Moving the vendor-ed libraries into a
> package manager would help us manage upgrading of libraries. The
> package.json file is a more standard format for managing javascript
> dependencies, when compared to our libraries.txt file.
>

Feel like putting that in your backlog? :-)

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company