Hi On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Michael Brand <michael.ch.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nathaniel > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Nathaniel Flath <flat0...@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 >
org-table-speedup-1.patch
Description: Binary data
org-table-speedup-2.patch
Description: Binary data
