From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 23, so slow to refresh on Windows Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:38:41 +0300 Message-ID: <83y6fha40e.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8CCC3DAB0774A32-16F0-1536@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> <8CCC4332DEEAEEC-16F0-3DA0@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> <83zkzxa7xv.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274179136 24434 80.91.229.12 (18 May 2010 10:38:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bogossian@mail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 18 12:38:53 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEKCL-0000iW-5k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:38:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58665 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEKCJ-0005h0-Tc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 06:38:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50809 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEKC9-0005eV-Gv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 06:38:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEKC7-0005ow-Q3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 06:38:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:48817) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEKC7-0005ol-I4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 06:38:39 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L2M006002O0N900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 13:38:38 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.197.161]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L2M002L72WC5UC0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 18 May 2010 13:38:38 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:124886 Archived-At: > From: Juanma Barranquero > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 11:32:56 +0200 > Cc: bogossian@mail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:13, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Note that in a test file with only one line, this could give skewed > > results. > > AFAICS, the OP is interested in computer-generated files (dumps, logs, > etc.), which presumably have lots of lines. The > just-one-extremely-long-line file is a contrived example Exactly. So what I was saying is that measuring the performance on a file with a single long line will not give a good estimate of the effect of this variable on real-life files.