From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: How to improve Org startup time? Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:11:06 -0500 Message-ID: <3004.1359695466@alphaville> References: <867gmviujs.fsf@somewhere.org> <4875.1359494613@alphaville> <86txpzhaw3.fsf@somewhere.org> <6297.1359501092@alphaville> <86ip6ff3np.fsf@somewhere.org> <87d2wm7yip.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <867gmtttj7.fsf@somewhere.org> <87obg47sw2.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:32849) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U18u7-0005Nz-TR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:11:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U18u5-000459-O5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:11:11 -0500 Received: from g6t0185.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.62]:33659) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U18u5-00044p-HB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:11:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message from Eric S Fraga of "Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:27:33 +1030." <87obg47sw2.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Sebastien Vauban , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eric S Fraga wrote: > - start emacs > - M-x elp-instrument-package RET org-agenda RET > - M-x org-agenda-to-apt RET > - M-x elp-results > - quit emacs > > now gives me > > | org-agenda-to-appt | 1 | 1.602924479 | 1.602924479 | > | org-agenda-prepare-buffers | 1 | 1.510812568 | 1.510812568 | > | org-agenda-get-day-entries | 14 | 0.088741138 | 0.0063386527 | > | org-agenda-get-scheduled | 14 | 0.027990309 | 0.0019993077 | > | org-agenda-get-deadlines | 14 | 0.0154423710 | 0.0011030265 | > | org-agenda-skip | 797 | 0.008103603 | 1.016...e-05 | > > so the reduction is not quite as dramatic (factor of 5, not 50). > > That's roughly the kind of numbers I see as well. Nick