Hi

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Michael Brand <michael.ch.brand@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nathaniel
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Nathaniel Flath <flat0103@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Mine is a pretty simple table (takes less than a second even in the
> original
> > case):
>
> Earlier I assumed that the issue is a very high number of messages
> from the loops. Now your example table clarifies to me that the issue
> is that already just one single message can take a significant time of
> a message-less table recalculation (your 17 ms).
>
> Only with this I understand now why you want to remove also the
> beginning/end processing messages. Good point as it should be
> noticeable at least for org-table-iterate-buffer-tables in a buffer
> with many tables where each one takes a short time to recalculate.
>
> I really wonder what the reason is that this
>
>     (progn
>       (message "%d" (random))  ;; Prevent collapsing of message lines.
>       (time (message nil)))
>
> in a terminal (emacs -nw) shows most of the times only 0.05 to 0.10 ms
> but in a window it shows most of the times 8 to 22 ms (here: GNU Emacs
> 24.3.1 on Mac OS X 10.9). Which Emacs version and OS are you using?
>

I'm running 24.3.1 on Mac OS X  10.8.4.

>
> For your patch I suggest to remove only the first message and to add
> the time check to all other messages. This should not make the patch
> noticeably slower but would keep showing the progress for table
> recalculations that last more than one second. To clean up the last
> loop message from the mode line I suggest to check the end messages
> against the very first log time in contrast to the next log time used
> for the loop messages (variables "log_first" and "log_next" instead of
> just "log").
>
> I suggest you split your patch: One for "(when eqlist" and one for the
> messages. The change with the messages will then become human readable
> also with a simple line diff.


OK, sounds reasonable.  Patches are attached.


>
> > Original recalculation:  (0 0 396224 0)
>
> > Version w/ time checks for per-field messages (still always printing at
> > beginning/end of processing):(0 0 56929 0)
>
> > Version w/ time checks and removing all beginning/end of processing
> > messages: (0 0 22077 0)
>
> > My patch:  (0 0 17405 0)
>
> I could not reproduce a reliable difference between the last two. As
> expected both did not log any message. Can you?
>

Rrunning more iterations they seemed to be mostly equal.

Patches are attached.

>
> Michael
>