Hi all,
after completing most of the work of reviewing the scholarly.annotate
module I realize that it (presumably one small change) is a total
performance killer, and I need some help tracking it down.
There are a few things I have changed (had to), and one in particular
seemed suspicious t
Urs Liska writes:
> after completing most of the work of reviewing the scholarly.annotate
> module I realize that it (presumably one small change) is a total
> performance killer, and I need some help tracking it down.
Quadratic behavior or worse.
> Observations:
>
> * The obvious stage of slo
On 2018-07-10 02:56, Urs Liska wrote:
The situation is that a three-page score that takes ~ 2.1 seconds
without the engraver and with the old state of the engraver now needs
5.8 seconds. And a >20 page score that I recall using around 20-25
seconds now needs 57 - so that's obviously nothing to ig
Urs Liska writes:
> Hi all,
>
> after completing most of the work of reviewing the scholarly.annotate
> module I realize that it (presumably one small change) is a total
> performance killer, and I need some help tracking it down.
Well, one thing just jumping out at me is
((process-acknowl
Am 10.07.2018 um 12:22 schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska writes:
after completing most of the work of reviewing the scholarly.annotate
module I realize that it (presumably one small change) is a total
performance killer, and I need some help tracking it down.
Quadratic behavior or worse.
Th
Am 10.07.2018 um 16:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska writes:
Hi all,
after completing most of the work of reviewing the scholarly.annotate
module I realize that it (presumably one small change) is a total
performance killer, and I need some help tracking it down.
Well, one thing just j
Am 10.07.2018 um 16:56 schrieb Urs Liska:
Am 10.07.2018 um 16:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska writes:
Hi all,
after completing most of the work of reviewing the scholarly.annotate
module I realize that it (presumably one small change) is a total
performance killer, and I need some hel
Am 10.07.2018 um 19:48 schrieb Urs Liska:
This seems to confirm that I should *not* break out of the for-each
loop that iterates over all-grobs in process-acknowledged.
Does that mean that resetting the all-grobs list in
start-translation-timestep is the right approach#
It's obviously
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 10.07.2018 um 19:48 schrieb Urs Liska:
>>
>> This seems to confirm that I should *not* break out of the for-each
>> loop that iterates over all-grobs in process-acknowledged.
>>
>> Does that mean that resetting the all-grobs list in
>> start-translation-timestep is the righ
Am 11.07.2018 um 11:55 schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska writes:
Am 10.07.2018 um 19:48 schrieb Urs Liska:
This seems to confirm that I should *not* break out of the for-each
loop that iterates over all-grobs in process-acknowledged.
Does that mean that resetting the all-grobs list in
star
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 11.07.2018 um 11:55 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska writes:
>>
>>> Am 10.07.2018 um 19:48 schrieb Urs Liska:
This seems to confirm that I should *not* break out of the for-each
loop that iterates over all-grobs in process-acknowledged.
Does that mea
11 matches
Mail list logo
