Pretty much as the title says, does a non-fixed table-layout share the same performance issues as that of a similar HTML table?
Pretty much as the title says, does a non-fixed table-layout share the same performance
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Pretty much as the title says, does a non-fixed table-layout share the same performance issues as that of a similar HTML table?
The problem with non-fixed tables is that to determine the width of a column, all cells of that column have to be loaded. This only matters if…
In a sense, this is similar to using CSS. However, the HTML will sometimes be displayed before the style is applied, so the page loads fast, but it takes roughly as long until you see the correct layout.
Unless you have a very large table, using the html table is probably always better, as it is more idiomatic. If you have to create a large table and loading time bothers you, benchmark to get that split-second difference.
So my answer to your yes/no-question is: No, unless you want to see the same table in both cases.
Note: The last time I looked at a large html table (~3000 rows, loading time ~4sec.) it started displaying before it was fully loaded. This may not be the true for older browsers