what is the current status of hierarchy in archive files? surely they don't deal with updating categories and updating hierarchy structure [sounds brittle and syncy]? i'm thinking it isn't hierarchical at present, except when you have a doneified task with children?
On 8/11/21, Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the problem with just using append to file is that it won't > preserve the shape of the file. For example, if I had a file with > > * Notes > ** Note 1 > blah blah > ** Note 2 blah blah > > * Tasks > ** DONE task 1 > ** TODO Task 2 > > and I decide to archive note 1 and task 1, I would like them to both appear > under the same headings and with the same level. If the process just uses > append to file, I can have this for the first archiving i.e. > > * Noes > ** Note 1 > > * Tasks > ** DONE task 1 > > but then later, I decide to archive note 2, if append file is used, I will > end up with > > * Notes > ** Note 1 > > * Taks > ** DONE task 1 > > * Notes > ** Note 2 > > which is not what I want. I want > > * Notes > ** Note 1 > ** Note 2 > > * Tasks > ** DONE Task 1 > > So, if we want to preserve hierarchies in our archive files and not have > everything jumbled up together, the system has to parse the file. If you > are also using something like Categories, then even more work needs to be > odne to update the category lists. > > What I tend to do is mark items with the ARCHIVE tag and leave them in the > file and then every few months, move archived data to archive files. It > can still get slow, but I don't do it often, so it isn't too much of a > hassle. > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 08:23, Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> thanks for the clarification. are you saying that, for every archived >> entry, it calculates teh category property, using the original org >> file, in order to add a category property to just one archived entry? >> >> that would certainly slow down more and more, but it sends me back to >> my question about whether append to file would work. >> i.e. build the single entry in a temporary buffer then write that >> region to a file on disk. >> >> On 8/10/21, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> i should clarify. bulk archiving slows down even with /nonexistent/ >> >> (have not tried empty) archives. as part of normal and expected >> >> operation, bulk creates the archive for the first entry, and then >> >> subsequent entries are added. those get slower and slower. >> > >> > That's what I suspected. I also see this and my suggestion helped >> > archiving speed in my case. >> > >> >> i use (olpath category itags). i will try (file time) when i can, if >> >> that still applies. my brain needs to be more operational. >> > >> > When you use category, every time you modify the original file (not the >> > archive!), Org mode re-calculates *all* the categories in the original >> > Org file. It happens for every single archived heading. If your >> > original >> > Org file is large, re-calculations make things extremely slow. >> > >> > Best, >> > Ihor >> > >> >> >> -- >> The Kafka Pandemic >> >> Please learn what misopathy is. >> >> https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html >> >> > > -- > regards, > > Tim > > -- > Tim Cross > -- The Kafka Pandemic Please learn what misopathy is. https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
