Well, I finally had the time to try this out, and after a little
fiddling, I cut my time in half. I still think there must be further
optimization options (what David suggested probably won't work for our
purposes, but I may look into it), as when I only load the first level
of data, which is 6K,
Hi list,
I've got a tree-type of data, representing somewhat of a method call
history. When this is loaded, in an instance where it represents about
60 entries total, up to 2 deep, representing 14k of data, it takes
about 9 seconds (up from ~0). Now, my laptop HDD where I am testing
now is pretty
