Performance issue when using invisible app to add a record

[Patrique]

Hi,

we're trying to provide our customer a way to efficiently add lines to customer orders - if possible with only using keyboard input. The customer is on the phone and we reduced the input to "item number", "quantity". Unit can be changed optionally. The input process itsself is I think nearly as fast as it would be if we had the possibiliy of inline editing in the grid. The issue comes up, when the "add" button is triggered with the last ENTER.

If the customer order is new, we save the customer order header to have an id and start a new app "customerOrderLine" when adding the first new order line and fill all fields in code. For the 2nd to the last we only use the already started app and fill the fields.

The first order line takes around 6-8 seconds before it's inserted and displayed, all the following order lines take a little less time. Plus the time needed to put in the information for the new order line.

Could you please give us advice on how to optimizie the performance? We can of course provide examples and screenshots as well as show you around in a live support session.

Thanks,
Patrique

[volker.thebrath]

Hi Patrique,


you could start the invisible app earlier, but that would only improve the first iteration.


The other options i see here is, to lighten your invisible app. Remove unnecessary fields and especially try to avoid DataSource fields that produce large subrequests.

[chris]

Hi Patrique,

I know this problem from some other apps and don't see any opportunities with the use of app.startBrixxbox.
But you can give it a try by using an SQL-Script (app.sqlWrite)... should be much faster.

The disadvantage is of course that you always have manual work when you change the relevant database fields.

[Patrique]

Hi Volker,
Hi Chris,

thanks for your answers.

The other options i see here is, to lighten your invisible app. Remove unnecessary fields and especially try to avoid DataSource fields that produce large subrequests.

You're absolutely right of course. I had thought about this way, but it seemed to me a way to disregard the features / advantages of the brixxbox. Also, it makes more bricks necessary which means it produces higher costs for the customer. In my case it would also mean that I would have to create two apps for the same functionality (adding records).

I know this problem from some other apps and don't see any opportunities with the use of app.startBrixxbox.
But you can give it a try by using an SQL-Script (app.sqlWrite)... should be much faster.

The disadvantage is of course that you always have manual work when you change the relevant database fields.

you're right this is the way with the highest performance although it brings with the disadvantage you mentioned.

I will give both ways a try and see where I get.

I will share my experiences on this here

Patrique