On 17.1.2013, at 09:54, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > Carsten Dominik <carsten.domi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17.1.2013, at 06:02, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> It sets p to the point at the beginning of the line and then >>> checks if the character after it is '#'. Only then does it skip >>> the entry. >> >> And this is done for speed. Maybe Moore's law has progressed enough to >> relax this assumption? >> > > For me, probably yes: my agenda is fairly simple. More complicated > agendas still seem to take a fairly substantial time to construct > however - Bastien spent considerable effort recently to speed up the > agenda and might look askance at any attempt to slow it down :-) > > But actual numbers would carry more weight than any guesses I might > make. Here is a (probably stupid) implementation of the generalized > mechanism. In org-agenda-skip, replace > > (if (equal (char-after p) ?#) (throw :skip t)) > > with > > (save-excursion > (goto-char p) > (skip-chars-forward "[:blank:]") > (if (equal (char-after) ?#) (throw :skip t))) > > Assuming it's correct (and no better implementation is suggested), maybe > somebody with a time-consuming agenda can try profiling with and without > the generalized mechanism and let us know. > > I tried with my agenda which calls org-agenda-skip 5768 times. Without > the mod, they took 0.13s; with the mod, they took 0.19s, so that's a 50% > increase - but the overall time was actually shorter in the second case: > 1.64s vs 1.72s.
Did you have a number of commented SCHEDULED items in there, so that time was saved on those items? Otherwise it would be hard to see why things should actually go faster. - Carsten > The data look noisy however (I only tried it once in > each case) so it's hard to say anything meaningful. I'd need to run many > more experiments before I'd trust these numbers. > > Nick > > > >
