2 Replies Latest reply on Aug 21, 2009 9:51 AM by Brian Antao

    rich:tree performance issue

    Brian Antao Newbie

      I am working with a rich: tree implementation that has a rich:recursiveTreeNodesAdaptor and I simulated the implementation on a data set on a growing data tree. I have in the
      recursive tree a single root and n^n levels deep nodes It seems that the recursiveTreeNodesAdaptor wants to render the whole segment of the tree as it is expanded and selected. and thus breaks down. I need to use a rich tree implementation to selectively display a tree composed of 1000's of nodes that are generated in real time and just some of these need to be selectively rendered . Keeping the large data set in mind and performance issues to consider what is the best form of rich tree implementation to use ? and how would if be possible to control and render just portions of the huge data tree based around the user selection, instead of the complete tree ...

      Many thanks,
      -- Brian

        • 1. Re: rich:tree performance issue
          Ilya Shaikovsky Master

          check this attributes

          Also check ajaxKeys and ajaxNodeKeys,

          • 2. Re: rich:tree performance issue
            Brian Antao Newbie

            Thanks for the hints --

            I had a follow up question where I am working on performance optimisation of our rich tree implementation. What is the best way to get at the "Set of all Nodes" of the Tree that are expanded and rendered on the display... I have a tree data set that is huge. but I am now able to controll the rendering of the tree with the below attributes and expose only selective segments of the tree. Now once I have exposed a selective segments of the tree interactively I would like to programmatically acees those set of nodes from the tree that are interactively exposed. I am using the recursiveTreeNodesAdaptor. and I have tried all of the getAjaxKeys and getAjaxNodeKeys methods they all return Null . getRowData only returns the currently selected node only. Would this be possible ?

            Thanks Again.
            -- Brian