How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di..

"ship" <shiphen.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190724278.843961.248890@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hi
>
> We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.

Why?

> Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
> first?

Not really.

Why is the table so big? URL?

If the table *is* so big then why would I want to download it all anyway?

Hint: As soon as I see my scroll bar progressing up into the top quarter of
my browser window I think: "Aha, I don't need the rest of this" and
invariably hit stop, or more often, back.

--
Richard
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, Brian Wakem <n... DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> ship wrote:
>
> > Hi
>
> > We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.
> > Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
> > first?
>
> > i.e. Is it enough to put the first 50 records into its own table?
> > The thing is that due to the construction of the page template
> > BOTH tables will necessarily be within the same one page.
>
> I interpretted this question differently from all of those that have
> answered so far.
>
> I am thinking you are suffering from IE's inability to render a table until
> the entire contents is known, something I do not think any other major
> browser suffers from.
>
> I have circumvented this is the past by making my loop output a separate
> table for each row rather than a separate row in the same table.
>

Well... since you ask here is the page in question:
http://www.auctionair.co.uk/High-Bid-Auction/Results.aspx

Why such a big table? Because we want to show SCALE.

Why not on two pages? Because almost no one will find and
bother to click on a small link at the bottom of the page, whereas
if you ask to see some sample results and you get a tonne of
data down it's in your face - you KNOW that there is a lot of it.

OK so we have put the first 50 Lots into it's own HTML table.
The problem is that I can't see if it displays the first 50 before
the rest of the page because we are on broadband and it's uploading
too fast!

I did ask in an earlier post if anyone new of a good way to throttle
my connectivity back down to a sensible level, but no easy answers
yet...


Ship
Shiperton Henethe
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

ship wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.
> Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
> first?
>
> i.e. Is it enough to put the first 50 records into its own table?
> The thing is that due to the construction of the page template
> BOTH tables will necessarily be within the same one page.


I interpretted this question differently from all of those that have
answered so far.

I am thinking you are suffering from IE's inability to render a table until
the entire contents is known, something I do not think any other major
browser suffers from.

I have circumvented this is the past by making my loop output a separate
table for each row rather than a separate row in the same table.


--
Brian Wakem
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

Brian Wakem wrote:
>>
>> We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.
>> Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
>> first?
>>
>> i.e. Is it enough to put the first 50 records into its own table?
>> The thing is that due to the construction of the page template
>> BOTH tables will necessarily be within the same one page.
>
> I have circumvented this is the past by making my loop output a separate
> table for each row rather than a separate row in the same table.
>
I have a similar solution. When the page is being generated by the
script, the table is broken into multiple tables with a fixed number of
rows, i.e., when the current table reaches a specified number of rows, it
is closed and a new table started.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

On 2007-09-25, ship wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, Brian Wakem <n....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>> ship wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>>
>> > We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.
>> > Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
>> > first?
>>
>> > i.e. Is it enough to put the first 50 records into its own table?
>> > The thing is that due to the construction of the page template
>> > BOTH tables will necessarily be within the same one page.
>>
>> I interpretted this question differently from all of those that have
>> answered so far.
>>
>> I am thinking you are suffering from IE's inability to render a table until
>> the entire contents is known, something I do not think any other major
>> browser suffers from.
>>
>> I have circumvented this is the past by making my loop output a separate
>> table for each row rather than a separate row in the same table.
>>
>
> Well... since you ask here is the page in question:
> http://www.auctionair.co.uk/High-Bid-Auction/Results.aspx
>
> Why such a big table? Because we want to show SCALE.

That doesn't show scale. Who's going to bother descending more than
a screen or two?

> Why not on two pages?

Better still, 10, 20 or more pages.

> Because almost no one will find and bother to click on a small link

Then use a big link.

> at the bottom of the page,

So put it at the top.

> whereas if you ask to see some sample results and you get a tonne of
> data down it's in your face

No, it's not in my face. It's somewhere off the screen (or not yet
on my computer).

> - you KNOW that there is a lot of it.

You don't think people know what 2,000 means?

> OK so we have put the first 50 Lots into it's own HTML table.

That's a reasonable size for a page. Note the word, "page".

> The problem is that I can't see if it displays the first 50 before
> the rest of the page because we are on broadband and it's uploading
> too fast!

The problem is that you are trying to put too much on a page. A
person on dial-up is more than likely going to leave long before
the page is loaded.

> I did ask in an earlier post if anyone new of a good way
> to throttle my connectivity back down to a sensible level, but no
> easy answers yet...

You are asking the wrong question.

With a broadband connection, the page loads reasonably quickly, but
it is far too big for me to want to look past two or three screens.
You could reduce the amount of scrolling by not limiting the table
to about half the width of my browser window. Each row requires two
lines because it is so narrow.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

ship wrote:

> On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, Brian Wakem <n....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>> ship wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>>
>> > We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.
>> > Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
>> > first?
>>
>> > i.e. Is it enough to put the first 50 records into its own table?
>> > The thing is that due to the construction of the page template
>> > BOTH tables will necessarily be within the same one page.
>>
>> I interpretted this question differently from all of those that have
>> answered so far.
>>
>> I am thinking you are suffering from IE's inability to render a table
>> until the entire contents is known, something I do not think any other
>> major browser suffers from.
>>
>> I have circumvented this is the past by making my loop output a separate
>> table for each row rather than a separate row in the same table.
>>
>
> Well... since you ask here is the page in question:


I did not ask.


> http://www.auctionair.co.uk/High-Bid-Auction/Results.aspx
>
> Why such a big table? Because we want to show SCALE.
>
> Why not on two pages? Because almost no one will find and
> bother to click on a small link at the bottom of the page, whereas
> if you ask to see some sample results and you get a tonne of
> data down it's in your face - you KNOW that there is a lot of it.
>
> OK so we have put the first 50 Lots into it's own HTML table.
> The problem is that I can't see if it displays the first 50 before
> the rest of the page because we are on broadband and it's uploading
> too fast!
>
> I did ask in an earlier post if anyone new of a good way to throttle
> my connectivity back down to a sensible level, but no easy answers
> yet...


You could saturate the connection before loading the page.

As I said before, only IE has a problem rendering tables like this, I don't
have IE so I can't help with that part.


--
Brian Wakem
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

Brian Wakem <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in
news:5lstqlF9ueq1U1@mid.individual.net:

> ship wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> We have a huge table of data to publish on a single page.
>> Is there a way to get the first screenful (say 50 records) to upload
>> first?
>>
>> i.e. Is it enough to put the first 50 records into its own table?
>> The thing is that due to the construction of the page template
>> BOTH tables will necessarily be within the same one page.
>
>
> I interpretted this question differently from all of those that have
> answered so far.
>
> I am thinking you are suffering from IE's inability to render a table
> until the entire contents is known, something I do not think any other
> major browser suffers from.
>
> I have circumvented this is the past by making my loop output a
> separate table for each row rather than a separate row in the same
> table.

That's really a bad approach. This basically goes against every reason for
using a table in the first place.


--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di.. 

"ship" <shiphen.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190741955.655235.290220@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, Brian Wakem <n....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>> ship wrote:

> http://www.auctionair.co.uk/High-Bid-Auction/Results.aspx
>
> Why such a big table? Because we want to show SCALE.

I was right. There was no way I needed to see this.

After the first 50 "lines" you don't even need the database. Simply make up
some random information. Nobody is going to read each and every line.

And this doesn't show scale. It shows IMHO sillyness, wasting 800KB of my
(and your) bandwidth.

--
Richard.
 >> Stay informed about: How can I get the FIRST part of a huge table of date to di..