Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes: > On Friday, 19 Jun 2015 at 08:19, Daniel Bausch wrote: > > [...] > >> Line 6000 is indeed quite "lame". I have similar problems like Eric. A >> table recalculation at line 43868 takes about a minute at my quite fast >> machine. I also tracked that down to org-current-line. One interesting >> detail is that this depends on the buffer encoding. With ASCII the >> recalculation takes less than a second, with utf-8 about a minute. > > Adding some data: my table is at line 8438 in the buffer but character > position 398345 (I have very long lines as I use visual-line-mode in org > exclusively with org-indent). I do use utf-8 encoding. > > I have just tried updating the table on a different laptop (i7-2760, 8 > cores, 8 GB RAM, Ubuntu) and it was very fast. > > The two laptops are running different versions of emacs (tracking latest > emacs developments on Ubuntu and Debian testing lead to different > versions unfortunately) so my gut feeling is that there is an emacs > issue here and possibly one related to utf-8 as Daniel suggests. > > I'll try to do more instrumenting on my other laptop when I get a > chance. > What is the setting of cache-long-scans you are using? Does it differ on the two laptops?
Ivan Andrus suggested setting it to nil, but it seems that for this case, leaving it at t (the default) should be much faster. But there may be a bug in the cache code. -- Nick
