I'm using UltraGrid with 20000 columns.
Sample Attached.
Is there another solution to improve this.
Hello. We decided to decrease the number of columns. Thanks for checking the progress of this issue. I appreciate it.
Hello,
I am just checking about the progress of this issue. Let me know If you need my further assistance on this matter?
Thank you for using Infragistics Components.
20,000 columns in one band is an extreme edge case, i.e., two or three orders of magnitude beyond what we consider to be a normal number of columns in a data source.
In my experience no application requirement would necessitate that many columns, therefore the grid is not optimized for such a huge number.
I don't think there is any solution to this problem besides reducing the number of columns. As I stated previously, if you describe your ultimate objective, we might be able to help you come up with a different solution that does not involve thousands of columns in one band.
You might be mistaken about what I want to say.
I do not want to improve performance of CellDataRequested.Handler.
Even if CellDataRequested.Handler code is eliminated, it still takes 45 seconds to load up all UI.
What I want to do is to shorten the time to load up all UI.
Is there any solution to this problem?
Any suggestion and solution would be appreciated.
I can't think of a use case where the user would be presented with a grid containing 20,000 columns in one band. If you could shed some light on your application requirements and why you would have that many columns in one band, we might be able to help recommend a different solution.
The only thing I saw that might get you a performance boost is in the UltraDataSource.CellDataRequested handler, where you are concatenating the column key and row index to create a data key. Concatenating strings in this manner is inefficient as it causes heap fragmentation - in cases like this you should use a StringBuilder instead.