|
From: | Gregory Heytings |
Subject: | bug#46859: 28.0.50; [PATCH]: Add option to truncate long lines in xref.el |
Date: | Sun, 07 Mar 2021 08:13:23 +0000 |
I don't see a big difference: find takes 0.006 s, git ls-files 0.002 s. Okay, that's three times slower, but those four milliseconds are not the bottleneck here. I just ran some of the timing tests again, and they are about ten milliseconds faster with git ls-files, which is not a huge difference. (Of course I do not object to the use of git ls-files.)Sounds like you're testing the case of a project with not many files which compensate for their number in (larger) size.
As I said, my tests are performed on a fresly cloned copy of the Emacs repository (~5000 files). It's not a huge project, but it's not a small one either.
So if you redo your test with 'project-find-regexp' as I suggested, you might discover a different slowdown multiplier.I wanted to first time these things outside of Emacs, it seems to me that it's a more objective comparison.Very well. But testing inside Emacs is important, too.
Yes. It is important to test at each step of the pipe; step N can't become faster than step N-1.
Because with the results you shown as of yet, the proposed alternative is twice as slow as the existing code in the average case. Is that right? I wouldn't like searches that take 200ms now take 400ms.
Of course you can't get a benefit without paying a certain price. The tests show that, on the Emacs repository, a search takes 250 ms instead of 125 ms with GNU grep, and 100 ms instead of 50 ms with ripgrep. IMO that price is not too high, especially not for a user dialog (I don't see how a user could be annoyed, or even notice, that something takes 250 ms instead of 125 ms), but it's just my opinion.
Emacs's overhead could alter that picture, however.
Indeed.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |