From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#57079: 29.0.50; Performance of seq-uniq is not very good Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 22:35:54 +0300 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86mtcdnrad.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <83tu6ltlcq.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1vxwe0y.fsf@gnus.org> <83k07htjxf.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7wtwcu9.fsf@gnus.org> <83fsi5tj31.fsf@gnu.org> <87k07hwbgs.fsf@gnus.org> <838rnxti1k.fsf@gnu.org> <878rnxwayl.fsf@gnus.org> <837d3hth7r.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13325"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 57079@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 09 21:38:13 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV3N-0003Mj-EO for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 21:38:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51976 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV3M-0002oA-A8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:38:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47562) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV3C-0002k3-0R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:38:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55384) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV3B-0001Ak-N6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:38:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV3B-0000Zy-Ig for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:38:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Juri Linkov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 19:38:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 57079 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 57079-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B57079.16600738392167 (code B ref 57079); Tue, 09 Aug 2022 19:38:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 57079) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Aug 2022 19:37:19 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45133 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV2U-0000Yt-OZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:37:18 -0400 Original-Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:38987) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oLV2S-0000Yd-Sn for 57079@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:37:17 -0400 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 248EDFF807; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 19:37:07 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <837d3hth7r.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 09 Aug 2022 21:16:56 +0300") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:239221 Archived-At: >> > My point is that it will never be as fast as the implementations >> > Stefan deleted, replacing them with seq-uniq. My point is that those >> > changes just made several places in Emacs slower, even after your >> > speedup, for no good reason. Those deleted functions, if they needed >> > to be deleted, should have been replaced by a different >> > implementation, which doesn't support TESTFN and is therefore faster, >> > as the original implementations, now deleted, were. >> >> The performance of the new seq-uniq (called with no TESTFN) is identical >> to the old gnus-delete-duplicates -- it's the same code. > > Yes, and delete-dups on a copy is faster. delete-dups is faster because its implementation uses the hash table.