I am sorry, but I had to revert this patch because it was causing crashes in Windows build when loading any document into writer or when trying to save a document from writer.
It would be nice to check on windows to see whether it can be fixed, but we did not have much time for that now, so I just reverted. Sorry again F. On 06/09/11 19:22, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:36:18 +0200 > Christoph Lutz <chrl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> today I managed to improve the patch again. The patch now speeds up >> our mailmerge-Szenario enormously and seems to eliminate the >> exponential waste of cpu-cycles. Would you please have a look at it? >> >> here some measurings: >> >> MailMerge-Time (in ms) without patch for 10, 50, 100, 150 datasets: >> 2793, 11821, 28608, 64395 >> MailMerge-Time (in ms) with first patch for 10, 50, 100, 150 datasets: >> 2561, 11044, 26226, 55812 >> MailMerge-Time (in ms) with this patch for 10, 50, 100, 150 datasets: >> 1838, 7357, 14413, 21558 > > Wow, great win! Pushed as: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=e024f616934bb78fba8c8101264806d507068d7e > with some minor tuning: > - formatting (whitespace mostly) > - constness > > Could you maybe try, if a pragmatic: > m_aMarkBasenameMapUniqueOffset.clear(); > at: > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx?id=e024f616934bb78fba8c8101264806d507068d7e#n491 > and > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx?id=e024f616934bb78fba8c8101264806d507068d7e#n743 > kills the performance gain? > > If not, that would prevent the behavior change in for example the > scenario: > - Create Mark > - Copy Mark > - Copy Mark > - Delete First Copied Mark > - Copy Mark > > Best, > > Bjoern > _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
