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 18:56:53 -0400 Message-ID: <6135.1300229813@alphaville.usa.hp.com> 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> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37574 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PzdAf-0000Hp-00 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:56:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PzdAd-0004fw-Gp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:56:56 -0400 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:25509) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PzdAd-0004fq-C7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:56:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from Christian Moe of "Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:00:15 BST." <4D7FE16F.10305@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: Matt Lundin , Org Mode , nicholas.dokos@hp.com, Carsten Dominik Christian Moe wrote: > > > Yes, hardware is indeed a factor here. I'm using a dual-core Atom processor > > with 2GB of memory. > > > > Matt > > > > I'm not so sure about the hardware factor. > > I'm on a seven-year-old G4 Mac PPC laptop with 768 MB RAM. > > Over the same folded headings in a freshly pulled org-issues (Other to > Development Tasks), I get > > previous-line 5 5.89456 1.178912 > > Definitely a lag, but not as bad as you're seeing. > > True, but it's still a factor: on my laptop I get --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- previous-line 2 1.435139 0.7175695 next-line 1 0.446293 0.446293 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- being very careful to avoid next-line/previous-line in any other context: that was one next-line from "Other" to "Closed issues" and two previous-lines from "Closed Issues" to "Other" to "Development Tasks". Given the five previous-lines in your profile, I suspect that one or two were much longer than the others which skewed the average. Given the evidence that Lawrence Mitchell provided however, it seems clear that most of the blame can be placed on overlays - no? Nick