Splitting data across multiple tables on a page
Splitting data across multiple tables on a page
ThomD
Posts: 334Questions: 11Answers: 43
I have a page with 8 mini tables (just two columns), pulling data from a single JSON data source. The Data set is divided into one of 4 categories. Within each category, I have a top 10 and Bottom 10 display. For example, if I had a category of color and a value of price, I'd have a table for Top $ Red, Top $ Blue, Top $ Green, Top $ Yellow and Bottom $ Red, Bottom $ Blue, Bottom $ Green, Bottom $ Yellow.
This all works, but I've done it sort of brute force. I load data set fully into each table, sort the table asc or desc and apply a filter for category. By removing the paging elements and the ability to sorting options, I get the top and bottom 10 in each category.
This seems a bit inefficient. I'm left with many extra rows in tables that I will never display (all the rows are in all the tables).
I could run a rows().remove() by category after I populate each table, but again, that's not elegant.
Is there a way in the datatables init to exclude (or immediately drop) a row? I could probably split the JSON at the source, but I'm hoping to avoid that.
This question has accepted answers - jump to:
Answers
Have you thought about maybe using a closure as the value of
data? And parsing or restricting the amount of results it returns? Thats the way I would do itEDIT: Oh... After reading the
datapage, I see it only takes an array as the value. I know you can use a closure for the value ofajax, im sure you could use that though?..Well, once I fired it up, the performance isn't bad, so I may leave it alone. Tinkering with the
ajaxoption is probably a good approach, but then I'd have to figure out how to inspect deep inside the json object to filter for the records I need. it's only 300 smll records, so I can live with it as is.If I were you, id use the
ajaxparam with a closure, and use the filter method within lodash, (Or even UnderscoreJS works, I just think LoDash is better :) )That seems to be the most efficient way, I definitely wouldnt delete the rows or just hide the pagination, that just seems.. hanky? If thats the right term, lol
The word you are looking for is janky. But, as a wise man once said, "If it is stupid, but it works, it ain't stupid."
On to the next project....
As another smart man once said, "If its worth doing, its worth doing right" ;-)