You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
We're using the relations widget to select authors for articles. This was fine to begin with. However, as the number of authors increased the load time increased drastically.
From other issues I understand that each a request is sent for each file and those should be cached after the initial load. However, our authors typically open this widget once.
Number of authors in collection: ~200
To Reproduce
Assuming the collections exist and one of the collections have relation to another collection
Create a new item (or select an existing one)
Click the dropdown
Expected behavior
Faster load time. A couple of seconds for example.
A possible solution could be that the search functionally limited the number of requests.
@sveinpg This question occurs to me, too.
If you have only one field (author) in the list, you can use a relation widget with multiple: true instead of a list of relations.
We are experiencing similar issues with this widget and would also like the performance improved. This widget is very useful for connecting entries together, and I've seen several issues in this repo referencing it.
Describe the bug
We're using the relations widget to select authors for articles. This was fine to begin with. However, as the number of authors increased the load time increased drastically.
From other issues I understand that each a request is sent for each file and those should be cached after the initial load. However, our authors typically open this widget once.
Number of authors in collection: ~200
To Reproduce
Assuming the collections exist and one of the collections have relation to another collection
Expected behavior
Faster load time. A couple of seconds for example.
A possible solution could be that the search functionally limited the number of requests.
Applicable Versions:
CMS configuration
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: