From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Re: Slow movement in large buffers Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:48:45 -0400 Message-ID: <5819.1300247325@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87d3ltjc8x.fsf@fastmail.fm> <17242340-A14F-495A-B144-20C96D52B620@gmail.com> <7205.1300198547@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <871v28tm9u.fsf@fastmail.fm> <4D7FE16F.10305@christianmoe.com> <6135.1300229813@alphaville.usa.hp.com> <4D7FF29C.9060008@christianmoe.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53594 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pzhno-0008Vt-8w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:53:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pzhnl-0000ou-Ty for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:53:40 -0400 Received: from vms173013pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.13]:61554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pzhnl-0000oo-J4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:53:37 -0400 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173013.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LI4006CRTGM1EH0@vms173013.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:53:23 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Christian Moe of "Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:13:32 BST." <4D7FF29C.9060008@christianmoe.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: mail@christianmoe.com Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, Org Mode Christian Moe wrote: > On 3/15/11 11:56 PM, Nick Dokos wrote: > Given the five previous-lines in your profile, I suspect that > > one or two were much longer than the others which skewed the average. > > Actually not, I was going back and forth over the same two lines, and > previous-line was fairly stable at around 1.2 seconds each time. My apologies. It took me a couple of tries to get things right and I made an unwarranted generalization. Thanks, Nick > Anyway, that's moot since, as you say, > > > Given the evidence that Lawrence Mitchell provided however, it seems clear > > that most of the blame can be placed on overlays > >