Ramel Eshed wrote: > 1) Actually, there is a bug here which is not exactly what I've > described earlier. The issue is that :call setqflist([]), instead of > adding one more list after the last list, will clear the next list and > delete the ones after. For example: let's say I used :grep 4 times so > I have now 4 lists. Now, if I do :colder 3, the first list becomes the > current list. :call setqflist([]) will empty list 2, and delete lists > 3 and 4.
We do remove newer lists when adding a new list before the end, but in this case it should not happen. > 2) Although quickfix performance got much better, I'm afraid there is > more to do: > a) It takes me about 9 seconds(!) to add 68,505 entries to the qf > list (using simple :grep command. Time was measured from after the > grep command output finished, of course). Yegappan's test takes > only 2 seconds because all the results are from the same file. Try > to add the loop variable to the file name in his test and see what > happens... > > This is the profiler log of the search I did: > > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name > 40.63 1.69 1.69 68510 0.02 0.02 buf_valid > 21.88 2.60 0.91 68505 0.01 0.02 buflist_findname_stat > 12.38 3.12 0.52 127664549 0.00 0.00 otherfile_buf > 4.81 3.32 0.20 4345 0.05 0.05 buflist_findnr Well, when adding an entry a buffer is created, so that we keep track of the actual name when doing ":cd". And it avoids duplicates. buf_valid() is often needed to check if an autocommand didn't delete a buffer. Both of these are hard to get rid of. > b) I remember you did 2 things in order to avoid the line > adjustments when it's not necessary: check first if the buffer has a > quickfix entry and don't call line adjustment when adding a line at > the end. > > I still see that adding to a buffer when there are many qf entries > is very slow. After I had the 68505 results of the :grep command, > adding ~84000 lines to a buffer (from channel output) became really > slow. This is the profiler log: How are the lines added? > Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name > 31.46 6.98 6.98 149100 0.00 0.00 buf_valid > 29.20 13.46 6.48 80590 0.00 0.00 buflist_findpat > 26.66 19.38 5.92 84950 0.00 0.00 buflist_findnr > 3.56 20.17 0.79 68507 0.00 0.00 buflist_findname_stat > 2.28 20.67 0.51 127673186 0.00 0.00 otherfile_buf > > It seems like checking the buffer each time alone takes a lot of time. > Is there any way to optimize the above functions? > Also, why I still see all these buffer functions even though all the > lines were added at the end of the buffer? If you use 'errorformat' it will locate the file name and find out what buffer has that file name. -- Q: How many legs does a giraffe have? A: Eight: two in front, two behind, two on the left and two on the right /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
