|
Why are you starting a new task and then immediately waiting for it? You're blocking the UI thread waiting for a background thread to complete, so you might as well just do the work on the UI thread.
I suspect the reason you're getting an exception is because you're updating a UI control from a non-UI thread. You will need to use the Invoke method to ensure that the updates only happen on the UI thread.
Unfortunately, since you've chosen to block the UI thread waiting for the background thread to complete, this won't work - the UI thread is blocked waiting for the background thread to complete, and the background thread is blocked waiting for the UI thread to process the Invoke message.
You might be able to work around the problem by using BeginInvoke instead, which won't block the background thread. However, this will change the behaviour of your code, as the list items will not be added in the same sequence.
If you're using .NET 4.5, try using async / await instead:
private async Task SynchronousWait200ms()
{
await Task.Delay(200);
listBox.Items.Add("Wait 200 ms, Thread Id = " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
private async void TaskRunButton_Click1(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
listBox.Items.Clear();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
await SynchronousWait200ms();
}
listBox.Items.Add("------------");
}
That should work, but you'll get the same thread ID for each item, as the code will be marshalled back to the UI thread.
Perhaps if you explain what you're trying to achieve, we might be able to help.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
modified 19-Jun-14 10:19am.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for your thoughts.
Yes, Invoke also blocks as you mentioned. BeginInvoke solves the issue, but sequence goes wrong.
Regarding async / await, I am aware of it. In the project from where I took the code and posted here, it has async / await sample also. I am working on a sample for async / await. In that same sample I wanted to add Task.Start() as an example to demonstrate the use of Task.Wait() via another button on the UI. That's the reason I am doing wait immediately after Task.Start() 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi masters, sorry for my question title.
Iam confused what the good sentence for this topic.
Example i use SendKeys.Send("^f"); to open "Find and Replace" menu in excel.
I have to open the file before use sendkey method.
Then after all process finished, workbook will appear and followed by the window of "Find and Replace" menu.
Is possible to show the window of "Find and Replace" menu only without workbook appear?
I just want to use excel search system in my program.
Sorry for my bad english, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
No you can't. The Find and Replace dialog is an integral part of the Excel UI. Plus, what exactly would you be searching if you didn't have the workbook open? How would you know that you had found things for a start?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh. I think to make search system for excel.
If button clicked, the window of "Find and Replace" is appear without workbook, or maybe the workbook is invisible.
If "find" button clicked, then this time the workbook is appear.
Okay thank you 
|
|
|
|
|
bonjot wrote: Is possible to show the window of "Find and Replace" menu only without workbook appear?
No. You must have a workbook open, otherwise the Find and Replace dialog doesn't make any sense.
You can try this yourself. Just launch Excel and close the default workbook that opens. Can you use Find and Replace then? Nope.
bonjot wrote: I just want to use excel search system in my program.
Can't be done. Excels Find and Replace will only work with workbooks/worksheets inside Excel.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, if i close workbook, find and replace window is closed too 
thank you master
|
|
|
|
|
Please Help
I am developing a C# windows form with a Data Grid View with list view
Task:-
Perform faster insert and update from a C# application
I have to inserting huge data (around 100,000 rows or more) from a list view/grid or data table to a SQL Server database.
How to improve the speed of the following loop which takes more then 3Hours and going outbound. Is there any other way
Eg:
Calculate button click event -> calculation part -> fill list view
total_emp = 100,000;
lvloanDetails.Items.Clear();
for (int i = 0; i < total_emp; i++)
{
ListViewItem lvi = new ListViewItem(emp_id.ToString("D2"));
loan_balance get from =(formula/additions/diductions/calculations)
lvi.SubItems.Add(loan_balance.ToString("#,0.00"));
lvLoanDetails.Items.Add(lvi);
i++;
}
Process button click event -> list view’s data insert in to sql database table
for (int i = 0; i < lvLoanDetails.Item.Count; i++)
{
insert -> list view to sql
i++;
}
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but your code really confuses me. Why are you doing i++ in the body of your for loops? Which part do you think is really causing the issue because the way you are creating your listview here is going to be really slow.
|
|
|
|
|
Why the heck are you putting 100,000 items into a list view?
Do you hate your users?
Or did you not think "What would this be like to use?" as well as "why is this slow?"
Don't. No user on this planet is going to sit there and look through 100,000 rows of information - they need it abstracted, sorted, searchable, filterable, just to bring the volume down to a meaningful level.
Use a List or a DataTable, and do a bulk insert into SQL, or do each row as you create it (though that is slower) - but don't try to put it into anything like a display control!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for your suggestion,
But there are some calculations to be done. is it a good idea and best way to use the same in Database - Store procedure?
And also, 100,000 rows will not be in UI, rather will do some calculation to get the summery to update on the database.
|
|
|
|
|
If they aren't in the UI, then why would you waste time and resources putting them into a UI control, which has to do a fair amount of processing every time you add an element? 
Let's go back a stage: you have 100,000 items of information. Where do they come from? What are you doing with them? How many results do you get from these items? How much of this are you inserting into the DB?
Because it may be that you are going completely the wrong way!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong tool for the job (as OG said) and probably the wrong place as well. If you MUST do this in the client app (winforms) then use a collection or datatable (if you are inserting 100k records then use bulk insert from a datatable) to hold the data not a UI control.
If you are looking up the loan details from the database then consider inserting the emp details without the loan info and do an update in the database, this will take advantage of the grunt a database brings to processing volume records.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
What about Store Procedure to achieve this process?
|
|
|
|
|
I would put all the data into a datatable via your loop, insert that into a staging table using bulkcopy. Then craft a stored proc that implements the loan function on each record as it is inserted into your final destination table either as a single record or a set depending on your function.
You still have not mentioned the database you are using.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The database is MS SQL (2008)
|
|
|
|
|
That's just details of implementation.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
A stored procedure is a bit moot, your primary issue is the number of database calls that you're making. Drop it to one call and you should see a dramatic increase in performance.
Some of the more reasonable solutions I've seen revolve around using SqlBulkCopy[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Either you bulk load or you make sure to not recreate the connection each time in the loop.
I often user StringBuilder concatenation and send 1000 insert queries in one go...
so you would have something like:
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder("");
for(int i = 0; i < someLength;i++){
builder.append(the insert query + ";");
if(i%1000 == 0){
ExecuteQuery(builder.ToString());
builder = new StringBuilder("");
}
}
Hope this gives you an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
I am using the following code
Uri collectionUri = new Uri(@"http://XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:8080/tfs/projectcollection");
TfsTeamProjectCollection teamProjectCollection =
new TfsTeamProjectCollection(collectionUri, new NetworkCredential(@"user","userpassword"));
teamProjectCollection.EnsureAuthenticated();
WorkItemStore workItemStore = teamProjectCollection.GetService<WorkItemStore>();
string wiql = "SELECT [System.Id], [System.WorkItemType], [System.Title], [System.AssignedTo], [System.State] FROM WorkItems " +
"WHERE [System.TeamProject] = 'Pathway' " + "AND [System.State] = 'System Test Complete' " +
"AND [Sagitec.Common.TestPhase] = '4.B – System Testing' ORDER BY [System.Id]";
WorkItemCollection workItemCollection = workItemStore.Query( wiql);
foreach (WorkItem wi in workItemCollection)
{
wi.Fields["Assigned To"].Value = "Srikanth";
wi.Fields["State"].Value = "Ready for Client Review";
wi.Fields["Reason"].Value = "Ready for Client Review";
MessageBox.Show(wi.Fields["Assigned To"].Value + " + " + wi.Fields["State"].Value + " + " + wi.Fields["Reason"].Value);
}
Now, when i see the values of respective Fields in workitem object, they are not holding the values that I have set. Instead they have value which is already there in the workitem. I checked about ByPassRules. But I dont see the enum WorkItemStoreFlags in my namespace. Can you please help me in setting the values for fields values in my workitem?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to initiate a connection from the server to a specific client? The only examples I have been able to find use the TCPListener to accept all clients that try to connect.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, by opening a client-socket on the server and connecting to a listener on the client. Effectively, that turns the server into the client, and the client into the server.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Makes sense. I'll give it a try.
|
|
|
|
|
kruegs35 wrote: Is there a way to initiate a connection from the server to a specific client?
Sort of. The client needs to be listening. You can't initiate a connection to any device on your own for security reasons. The "client" needs to be listening.
I wrote an app years ago for IM and had the client and server both open 2 ports. The server sent on the same port the client listened to and the client sent on the same port the server listened to.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Although answered else it should be noted that normally this is a pointless exercise.
The point of a server is to act on behalf of the client. A client can initiate requests and respond to requests from the server on the same socket. And server are more likely to be accessible than clients. For a server to connect to a client the client must be visible on the network. And as is often the case since the network is actually the internet most clients will not be accessible. And even in intranets network security will often limit incoming connection requests to client machines.
There might be a message based reason for this (like the way FTP can work) but if so it is still going to be better to some degree to have the client initiate another socket to the server rather than the reverse.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
