Home/ Questions/Q 3990030
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-20T06:26:43+00:00

I have a general JavaScript question. I’ll give you my scenario and then ask

  • 0

I have a general JavaScript question. I’ll give you my scenario and then ask you the question.

Scenario

I am making a table with (currently) over 3000 rows, and it is growing by 5-10 every day. I am using a javascript plugin to style this table and add useful functionality. It currently takes 15 seconds to fully load the page, after which everything runs smoothly (sorting, paging, etc.). That is a very slow initial load, though. The plugin offers a way with less DOM parsing, where you pass it an array of the information to be placed inside the table, which I am very intrigued by. However, I want to make this as fast as possible, because there will still be an array of 3000 rows (each with 11 columns of, on average, 10 characters).

Question

Would it be significantly faster to use a JavaScript const to store this giant array? Specifically, does JavaScript know not to put a const on the stack when passed as a parameter?

Furthermore, is this simply too much for JavaScript to handle? Should I dismiss this idea and start with AJAX now (which would mean much slower functionality but much faster pageload)?

Thanks!

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Because you say interaction is fast once the page is loaded I guess your biggest bottleneck is transfering the data over the wire.

    I would send everything as JSON (compressed with gzip) which is very lightweight and fast to load.

    I think styling should be done with CSS not JS. Also if you want the best UX initialize your table with less (1-200 elements), and then deal with the rest. It is better for the user if you show something right at the beginning.

    Storing the array can’t be a problem because GC will clear it up.

    • 0