Hi Andrei,
Le 24/02/2017 à 17:02, Andrei Chis a écrit :
Hi Thierry,
Strangely enough I'm getting different times on my machine
Just to start from the same baseline in a fresh Pharo 60411 image with
no changes to any of the inspectors over a series of runs I get:
array := (1 to: 1000000) asArray.
[array inspect] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.145"
[GTInspector inspect: array] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.031"
Yes, this is expected. I'm not comparing to the standard EyeInspector,
but with my experiments with a FastTable-derived widget and the
EyeInspector model. GTInspector is a lot faster than the normal
EyeInspector.
As default (the only one displaying 100k elements is the AltInspector)
| array |
array := (1 to: 1000000) asArray.
[AltInspector inspect: array ] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.096"
[EyeInspector inspect: array] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.364"
[GTInspector inspect: array] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.065"
If I change indexableDisplayLimit to 50000 and remove the Items view
then I get:
[GTInspector inspect: array] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.124"
[GTInspector inspect: array] timeToRun. "0:00:00:00.256"
So this time is to be compared to the "0:00:00:00.096".
I'm really interested in seeing what makes GTInspector slower on your
machine. Did you do other optimizations to SpecInspector?
The optimisations are:
- remove Spec (revert to a pure morphic application),
- use a FastTable-derived widget for a tree view (with a 100k element
limit),
- have the GT views as subitems in the widget.
I'm using a MacBook Pro Retina - 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7
Back on a Acer Chromebook C720p 1.4GHz Intel Celeron, with vmLatest.
5.0-201702231204 Thu Feb 23 12:36:20 UTC 2017 gcc 4.6.3 [Production
Spur ITHB VM]
CoInterpreter * VMMaker.oscog-EstebanLorenzano.2136 uuid:
40534c32-ca6b-4e97-91ec-31d509e49b0c Feb 23 2017
StackToRegisterMappingCogit * VMMaker.oscog-EstebanLorenzano.2136 uuid:
40534c32-ca6b-4e97-91ec-31d509e49b0c Feb 23 2017
VM: 201702231204 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm.git $ Date:
Thu Feb 23 13:04:59 2017 +0100 $
Plugins: 201702231204 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm.git $
Linux testing-docker-b6b0368d-4817-4638-86be-f022b8a58580
4.8.12-040812-generic #201612020431 SMP Fri Dec 2 09:33:31 UTC 2016 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Pharo VM version:
CoInterpreter VMMaker.oscog-HolgerHansPeterFreyther.1880 uuid:
16138eb3-2390-40f5-a6c8-15f0494936f8 Oct 10 2016
StackToRegisterMappingCogit VMMaker.oscog-HolgerHansPeterFreyther.1880
uuid: 16138eb3-2390-40f5-a6c8-15f0494936f8 Oct 10 2016
g...@github.com:pharo-project/pharo-vm.git Commit:
06744effac0f0aa3b4b32e17636448f9d51d6707 Date: 2016-09-30 08:40:43 +0200
By: GitHub <nore...@github.com <mailto:nore...@github.com>>
Cheers,
Andrei
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Thierry Goubier
<thierry.goub...@gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2017-02-24 14:29 GMT+01:00 Andrei Chis <chisvasileand...@gmail.com
<mailto:chisvasileand...@gmail.com>>:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Thierry Goubier
<thierry.goub...@gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goub...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hi Andrei,
2017-02-24 11:31 GMT+01:00 Andrei Chis
<chisvasileand...@gmail.com
<mailto:chisvasileand...@gmail.com>>:
Hi Thierry,
Indeed that's the simplest option now that we are using
fast table.
Just now in the case of the Raw view an
OrderedCollection is used to store all displayed elements.
If you display large collections every time you open the
Raw view it will instantiate a collection of size 100k
and instantiate 100k objects of
type GTInspectorIndexedNode. With FastTable we can
lazily load elements so we should be able to remove this
behaviour and the limit. Just we need to make sure it
will play nicely with automatic refresh. There is also
the issue that when expanding an element in the tree if
it's a collection you don't want to expand all elements.
I'm not sure you need to worry too much about that one; in
practical experiments, creating that 100k collection for
viewing (and the associated nodes instances) isn't too
costly (unless creating the GTInspectorIndexedNodes has
hidden costs: I've only experimented with the EyeInspector
framework).
There should be no hidden costs in GTInspectorIndexedNodes.
I made some experiments in the latest Pharo version and opening
the Raw view on an array with one million numbers takes around
120ms when 100k elements are computed.
I'll be curious how much it takes on your machine. To test
update indexableDisplayLimit to 50000 in
Object>>#gtInspectorVariableNodesIn: and remove the annotation
from Collection>>#gtInspectorItemsIn: (so that the Items
presentation is not loaded)
arrayLarge := (1 to: 1000000) asArray.
arrayLarge inspect.
This is the values I get on my work laptop (core i3-2350M 2.30 Ghz);
both inspectors displays 100k elements.
(1 to: 1000000) asArray in: [ :s | [s inspect] timeToRun]
0:00:00:00.064
(1 to: 1000000) asArray in: [:s | [GTInspector inspect: s]
timeToRun] 0:00:00:00.381
Pharo 6 60411
Opening the tree with all elements works fine in my
experiments. Tuning scrolling as done in Bloc is necessary,
however.
I'm looking now on a lazy data source for FastTable that
plays nicely with GTInspector. Let's see how it will go.
Help is always welcomed :)
As I said: do not overoptimize that part... just remove that
limitation on the raw view and measure.
If I measure the Items view on the previous array it takes
around 35ms.
What I'd like to have is the same opening time for the Items
view on large Sets and Dictionaries.
On my machine, the experiment is that displaying the set is fast,
but the system becomes totally unresponsive... which may be an issue
with the self refresh of the inspector. Yes, it was the culprit.
(1 to: 1000000) asSet in: [ :s | [s inspect] timeToRun] 0:00:00:00.034
(1 to: 1000000) asSet in: [:s | [GTInspector inspect: s] timeToRun]
0:00:00:00.199
Regards,
Thierry
I think I used the word paginator in the wrong way. If
you have a very large collection (millions of elements)
I do not want to scroll through elements but most likely
jump to a certain element or view just a subset of all
elements. Not really add a paginator like in web pages.
Ok, millions of elements is a bit out of my scope... I'll
look for filtering then.
Yes, definitely filtering is the way to go there :)
Cheers,
Andrei
Regards,
Thierry
Cheers,
Andrei
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Thierry Goubier
<thierry.goub...@gmail.com
<mailto:thierry.goub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Andrei,
if you're using fasttable for the Raw view, you
should be able to reach one 100k elements without
issues. I did some experiments and it handles the
load very well.
Avoid the paginator at any cost. This thing is
really user-unfriendly.
Regards,
Thierry
2017-02-23 20:19 GMT+01:00 Andrei Chis
<chisvasileand...@gmail.com
<mailto:chisvasileand...@gmail.com>>:
Hi Stef,
Currently that's the default behaviour of the
Raw view: it displays for collections only the
first and the last 21 elements. The Items view
however always should display all the elements
of a collection.
The main problem with the Raw view in Pharo 5 is
the speed. In Pharo 6 now the speed of the Raw
view is greately improved so we could increase
those limits. Still for now there should still
be some limit for the Raw view. Ideally we
should add a small widget, something like a
paginator, for navigating through large and very
large collections.
Cheers,
Andrei
On Feb 23, 2017 19:35, "stepharong"
<stephar...@free.fr <mailto:stephar...@free.fr>>
wrote:
Hi
I'm trying to debug citezen generation and I
have to compare strings.
Now I think that the raw views (in Pharo 50)
is not good because we cannot see all the
items in raw format.
See the attachements. It jumps from 21 to
174 ...
and what I want to see is of course in the
middle.
Is it me or there is something wrong there.
Stef
