From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: another example of org being slow, with some analysis Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:30:29 -0400 Message-ID: <87vbekc1iy.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com> References: <87ioalhtfa.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43622) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5eaX-00066W-S0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:30:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5eaR-00027q-Ba for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:30:57 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:49692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5eaQ-00027M-US for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:30:51 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5eaJ-000543-71 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:30:43 +0200 Received: from nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com ([66.187.233.206]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:30:43 +0200 Received: from ndokos by nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:30:43 +0200 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eric S Fraga writes: > The output of the ELP profiler is here: > > ... > org-goto-line 104 10.761145733 0.1034725551 > .. > org-current-line 66 6.8422078910 0.1036698165 > ... I find these two difficult to explain: they account for the vast majority of the time, they don't call anything other than basic emacs lisp functions (which should be very fast) and they take an unbelievably long 0.1 s/call - I did a profile of a single call of each in a file where wc reports these stats: 12961 270362 4317977 /home/nick/lib/notes/notes.org and I got 0.002s for the first (going to line 6000, about the middle of the file) and 0.0004s for the second: a factor of 50 smaller for the first and a factor of 250 smaller for the second. Maybe it's an artifact of profiling, but maybe you can try instrumenting these two functions and doing something similar. Do you still get 0.1s for each call? Nick