[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:32:02 +0300 |
> From: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>
> Cc: sbaugh@catern.com, sbaugh@janestreet.com, dmitry@gutov.dev,
> michael.albinus@gmx.de, rms@gnu.org, 64735@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:57:53 +0000
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> > It could be "call as soon as we got 100 file names", for example. The
> >> > number can even be a separate parameter passed to the API.
> >>
> >> Will consing the filename strings also be delayed until the callback is
> >> invoked?
> >
> > No. I don't think it's possible (or desirable). We could keep them
> > in some malloc'ed buffer, of course, but what's the point? This would
> > only be justified if somehow creation of Lisp strings proved to be a
> > terrible bottleneck, which would leave me mightily surprised.
>
> Thanks for the clarification!
> Then, would it make sense to have such a callback API more general? (not
> just for listing directory files).
>
> For example, the callbacks might be attached to a list variable that
> will accumulate the async results. Then, the callbacks will be called on
> that list, similar to how process sentinels are called when a chunk of
> output is arriving to the process buffer.
Anything's possible, but when a function produces text, like file
names, then the natural thing is either to return them as strings or
to insert them into some buffer.
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, (continued)
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, sbaugh, 2023/07/22
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/22
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/22
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/22
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/22
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Spencer Baugh, 2023/07/22
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/07/23
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Ihor Radchenko, 2023/07/23