I am binding 4 gridviews on button click. Like this
gv1.DataSource = GetData("Mill");
gv1.DataBind();
gv2.DataSource = GetData("Factory");
gv2.DataBind();
gv3.DataSource = GetData("Garage");
gv3.DataBind();
gv4.DataSource = GetData("Master");
gv4.DataBind();
They all are using the same method for getting the result and they are also taking time to load. Is there any way I can run them parallel? I afraid, because they are using same method to get the data.
Is it possible to do threading for them. How?
Please help
You may take a look at the following article about asynchronous pages.
Related
So I have setup a model/table that users will use as a project task list. I would like it so that when they change the Status (a field in the model) of an item to either Completed or Cancelled it is hidden.
That way they are only dealing with active entries. But I would also like them to be able to view these hidden (archived) items if needed.
I added the following code to the onAttach option of the table
var datasource = app.datasources.Projects;
datasource.query.filters.Status._notContains = 'Completed';
datasource.load();
And then I have a button with the following code so they can see hidden/archived items:
widget.datasource.query.clearFilters();
widget.datasource.load();
app.closeDialog();
var datasource = app.datasources.Projects;
datasource.query.filters.Status._contains = 'Completed';
datasource.load();
It works, but I feel like there might be a better/more elegant way to accomplish this. Especially since it looks like the app has to load then data, THEN filter it (which results in a slower load). (I think I might have some redundant code in there as well)
Also I feel like I am missing something with my syntax, because I can't get it to filter out Completed AND Cancelled.
Thank you for your help!
If you have a single page of items in the table and there aren't many items, then you can filter on the client side. For example, you can use a binding expression to add a "projectHidden" style to the row based on some logic and then use CSS to change the visibility of the row.
For your second code block, there is no reason to clear filters, load, set the filters and then load again. Just clear the filters, set the new filter, and call load. Also if you are manually controlling the query load, then you might want to uncheck the setting in the data source to automatically load data.
var datasource = app.datasources.Projects;
datasource.query.filters.Status._notEquals = 'Completed';
datasource.query.filters.Status._notEquals = 'Cancelled';
datasource.load();
i created web page with dropdownlist and two gridview and on selectedindex changed event i fill the both of these gridview but in the running the both of gridview take long time to be filled.
Note:one of this gridview i created its datasource by code.
here my code snippet:
protected void _ddlPLCs_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
DataTable dtStatus = new DataTable();
dtStatus = DBLayer.getMachineNameIPStatusPlCByName(_ddlPLCs.SelectedValue);
dtStatus.Columns.Add("Status", typeof(String));
foreach (DataRow row in dtStatus.Rows)
{
if (LogicLayer.checkmachineStatus(row["machineIP"].ToString()))
row["Status"] = "Online";
else
row["Status"] = "offline";
}
GVStatus.DataSource = dtStatus;
GVStatus.DataBind();
if (_ddlPLCs.SelectedValue.Contains('-'))
{
_dsPLCs.SelectParameters.Clear();
_dsPLCs.SelectParameters.Add("PLCID","0");
_dsPLCs.DataBind();
}
else
{
_dsPLCs.SelectParameters.Clear();
_dsPLCs.SelectParameters.Add("PLCID", DBLayer.getPlCIDByName(_ddlPLCs.SelectedValue).ToString());
_dsPLCs.DataBind();
}
}
pleas help me
Looking at the code, I think the problem is in this method:
LogicLayer.checkmachineStatus()
I have a hunch that this actually makes a network request to remote machines/devices to determine their status. This is going to be slow, especially if you have machines that might not be online and you have to wait for them to timeout.
If this is the culprit, what you want to do instead is build a service that runs on your server. The service should continually make these checks in the background and update a database table with the results. You probably want to include a timestamp for the last check in the table. It might even be worth inserting rather than updating, so that you have history of when status's were at different values. Your ASP.Net code should then just show the database table.
Profile! Get a trial version of RedGate ANTS and run it against your code.
If you choose line level timings, it will put a number next to each line in the code that will tell you exactly how long each line takes as a % or in milliseconds. Make sure to use wall clock time not cpu time or wait time from your datasource won't be counted properly.
I'd bet your datasource is slow.
You're doing a lot of work here...
A few random thoughts
Networks can be slow -- #Joel had a good point on that one.
One thing to check would be postback -- make sure you're only databinding on selected index changed.
Why aren't you using a 'handles' caluse in your function? Might not be a problem, just curious.
If you change your "status" column header to "online", and then use checkboxes (checked = online, unchecked = off-line, or something like that, you'll just be updating a bool value for each row, instead of a string value.
Something looks odd about how you're re-binding your dropdownlist. Because... You're using the selected value as a parameter in the gridview. Then you're subsequently re-binding the dropdown list, which potentially will result in a different selected value. Which could be causing your gridview to be databound yet again in a circuit. Not sure, as I can't see all of your code.
Anyway, FWIW. Good luck.
I have a ListView control which I used to populate using an ASP ObjectDataSource control. This worked fine.
However, I wanted to implement a filter that showed items in the ListView that began with the letter A, B, C, etc. To do this, I removed the ObjectDataSource control and replaced it with some code in the Page_Load event allowing me greater control over what I was passing in as the data source, similar to this:
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print("{0:HH:mm:ss} : GET DATA", DateTime.Now);
List<MyItem> items = GetItems("A"); // Gets a list of items with a description that
// begins with A
MyListView.Datasource = items;
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print("{0:HH:mm:ss} : BIND DATA", DateTime.Now);
MyListView.DataBind();
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print("{0:HH:mm:ss} : DONE", DateTime.Now);
Output (times are representative of actual results):
16:00:00 : GET DATA
16:00:00 : BIND DATA
16:00:20 : DONE
Since doing this, it takes about 20 seconds to load the page in my browser, instead of around 1 second when I used the ObjectDataSource.
To load the data into my ListView rows, I use the standard <%# Eval("Description") %> method. After some searching on SO and google, some people seem to say that Eval is inefficient.
Why does manual binding in the Page_Load event slow everything down? Is it because Eval is inefficient? How can I speed it up, and what is the correct way to do this?
It seems highly unlikely to me that the problem is the Eval statement or the the fact that you're databinding in the page load unless your returning a very very large list. Eval may be slower but not by the amount you are seeing. There is probably another cause.
I would double check the GetItems() function. It's more likely that the selection code is somehow less efficient than it could be.
Additional things to check...
Check the properties Eval is calling. Does they do something more that just return a string? Eval will run whatever code is within those properties/methods so make sure they are as fast as possible.
How many records are in your database? Do you have paging enabled? If so, the problem might be that the ObjectDataSource is using a more efficent method to retrieve only the number of objects that it intends on displaying, whereas your call to GetItems() is returning everything, even if it isn't being displayed. Given the huge disparity in the time to return, that is my guess as to what is happening.
If that is what is happening, you speed it up by limiting the number of records you are returning. This is going to depend on your implementation of GetItems(). You'd want to write something like GetItemsPaged(int firstRecord, int pageLength) that returns only a limited amount of data.
I have now found a TON of crappy not clear, not relevant examples of ways I can start to tackle the problem. Can't believe i've spent any more than 10 minutes on this but it's been 3 hours so far.
I am looking at an aspx page with next to no code behind. This page renders a crystal report out to a pdf.
The crystal report is bound to an objectdatasource which is bound to one of the tableadapters in a stupidly large dataset.
The problem is the query times out. It's a long running proc, (50 seconds) and timeout is 30 seconds. I have looked at adding a partial class but since the objects are not bound in code i wouldn't be able to set the timeout that way and it's a web site and as such the code behind for the dataset is a whole bunch of XML anyway and i'm not sure I can add a partial class here to expose the time out and if I could i'd be repeating about 70 times, once per adapter.
So does anyone have a better, simpler or at least a method that works so I can get this crystal report, today :)
Thanks
If you are using and ObjectDataSource, you use a partial class to change the command timeout.
Add the following code to the objectCreated event of the ObjectDataSource on the aspx page;
protected void ObjectDataSource1_ObjectCreated(object sender, ObjectDataSourceEventArgs e)
{
DataSet1TableAdapters.DataTable1Adaptor ta;
ta = (DataSet1TableAdapters.DataTable1Adaptor)e.ObjectInstance;
ta.setCommandTimeOut(60);
}
Sory missed the part about the partial classes. Have a look at Control TableAdapter Command Timeout Globally to set the command timeout
Can't you increase the ConnectionTimeout of the SQLCOnnection used to fill the dataset?
i.e. SQlConnection.ConnectionTimeout = somevalue
There are two possibilities: Optimize the procedure or increase your connection timeout.
I know you said it's the command timing out, but I'd bet that it's the connection to the database that is timing out. I've never heard of the command object timing out.
Have you tried changing/setting the time out in the connection string?
If you can't modify the TableAdapter's timeout, and assuming the procedure can't run any quicker, then i don't see any option other than to set the report's data source to the stored procedure directly. Crystal doesn't really care about timeouts that low.
I have a ListView that I am databinding to a collection of objects something like this:
int total;
List<Client> clientList =
clientData.GetClients(criteria, pageNum, pageSize, out total);
uxClientList.DataSource = clientList;
uxClientList.DataBind();
Where the pageNum, pageSize and total parameters facilitate paging at the data access layer. So far so good.
Now I can throw a DataPager on the page, point it at the ListView and get a decent paging UX. There's a little more to it when you're binding programmatically instead of declaratively with a data source control, but the problem here is that DataPager expects that the entire result set is being retrieved each time, from which it should calculate pagination, so it sees the single page of results returned as the total available records and gets rendered as if there is only one page of results available. In other words, the above scenario works fine with DataPager if we switch to a non-paging version of GetClients:
List<Client> clientList = clientData.GetClients(criteria);
uxClientList.DataSource = clientList;
uxClientList.DataBind();
Obviously since our data access layer is kind enough to provide us with a method to retrieve a page at a time, this would be preferable to retrieving all records every time. It would be nice if we could explicitly inform DataPager of the total available records so it could still automatically create pagination output, but only require one page at a time to do so.
I haven't found an easy way to do this and I haven't turned up anything in searches. Admittedly I don't currently posses a deep understanding of the implementation of DataPager, so hopefully I'm overlooking something.
Have a look at the ListViewPagedDataSource and its AllowServerPaging property, I think that may be what you're looking for..
You haven't overlooked anything.
When dealing with large result sets you need to turn paging off and add your own paging controls.
In my experience << < > >> suffice. Nobody goes past the 3rd page anyway.