for cleaning logbook entries, i'd enjoy having an agenda view that shows every entry that has state changes [above a minimum number of them to keep it small], with the size of the logbook drawer in the prefix or so next to the category, sorted by that size.
there would be a corresponding agenda batch command that would archive, delete, or archive all except most recent for the marked entries. is it the number of headlines in a file or the total number in agenda files? i think it's great to have org-ql. lispy query is great. although mostly i just use text search, it would be more memorizable syntax for tags type search [and custom sorts?]. is this a suitable start for agenda-ng? will it be cleaner and faster? another speedup possibility might be to allow redoing the agenda with a new sorting strategy without having to redo the scanning of agenda files. i agree not scanning unchanged buffers could really speed up the agenda in principle. [it'd be great if emacs could parallelize across smp cores in addition. :]] On 10/10/18, Marcin Borkowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2018-10-08, at 09:20, Michael Welle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Marcin Borkowski <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Hi Orgers, >>> >>> my agenda takes almost 10 seconds to show up. Are there any ideas for >>> profiling that? >>> >>> I suspect that archiving a lot of old entries I don't use anymore might >>> help, but is there any way to e.g. display some stats on which >>> file/headline took how much time? >> since no one answered yet, there are some similar threads. IIRC the way >> to go is to use elp for profiling. >> >> Well, on my laptop the initial agenda run takes about 7s or so (150 >> agenda files) using the current day/week agenda ("a"). All subsequent >> (after loading the files) agenda runs are fast (split second I would >> say). I had some performance issues in the past caused by SCM. Emacs >> tried to check if every file is checked out in the latest version. That >> slowed down the process a lot (starting 150 mercurial processes in >> sequential order, checking results, etc.). The initial run doesn't >> bother me much. I bound the initial agenda run to an idle timer at Emacs >> start. > > Interesting. I did not notice such differences between the first and > subsequent runs. > > Anyway, thanks for your input (to all people who replied, actually). > > -- > Marcin Borkowski > http://mbork.pl > > -- The Kafka Pandemic: <http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com> The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY can get it at any time. "You’ve really gotta quit this and get moving, because this is murder by neglect." --- <http://www.meaction.net/2017/02/03/pwme-people-with-me-are-being-murdered-by-neglect>.
