-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
performance issue when drop large number of nodes #991
Comments
There might be issues concerning the memory layout of the lib leading to memory leaks. If you are adventurous you can try the now unereleased sigma v2 (on the v2 branch, check the examples folder) because this should be fixed. |
Thanks for your replay. I make a mistake that I confused sigma.js and linkuris.js. I used linkuris.js yesterday...And I try sigma.js today, and the performance is much better than linkuris in the second case which costs just 7 or 8 seconds. However, there still a difference between the two cases--the first case costs 4 or 5 seconds while the second case costs 7 or 8 seconds(I have tried v1.2 and v2, and no difference).I really can not figure it out.. The following is the code which I modified based on basic.html in the examples folder. `
delete
//js code for (i =0; i <N; i++) { for (i = 0; i < N; i++) s = new sigma({ function deleteAll(){ |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
I got a weird problem that when I drop the same batch of nodes there is a big difference in using time at the following different cases.
First case--the nodes's id is set by numeric string obtained in the database;
Second case--the nodes‘s id is set by random function in js, the random numbers have the same length with nodes‘s id in the first case.
I used 3221 nodes, and when I drop nodes in the first case it costs 25 seconds or so while in the second case it just costs 3 seconds. Has anyone met the same problem?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: