From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should `get-file-buffer' be implemented in Elisp? Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:28:50 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0p6zy25.fsf@localhost> References: <87pm4r1z03.fsf@localhost> <83fs5n8zaz.fsf@gnu.org> <87mszv1xur.fsf@localhost> <83cz0r8ygk.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6q31uf5.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18789"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: tomas@tuxteam.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 17 11:29:44 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1qLKY3-0004cG-RD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:29:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qLKX7-00069I-12; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 05:28:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qLKX5-00069A-07 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 05:28:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qLKX3-0002U8-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 05:28:42 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35A37240103 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:28:39 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1689586119; bh=+7yhQ8LbNFp63CyzFZvdtoR+aZpgD+c3YZAr8m65gPg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=ISw9gAkS56efWCgBcJIs+Z1XA479/T8U8ptoLbLdSbM7GEmfkeiVI6Y5kUbi0S8VQ RaYUPz6TAOHEyn3ivOrShbAxsniLkLhnGFsTEEhPegXEuYjZxD5nh4IzePmzUy7TzI J3BSozw6Iv/Q2IjyUmmK6FDk3MWETvAAdd2wfbwZ+DSQ0g27t4DSilT1dDLYKyX5XC 0VHrdNVkEodHghSfdIn/WIOVb+azDsRkneiHPQnkvx4MTvWSxRIfZa4XHJMFGsfCtp +IIx0oRTDHGr92I1LfQoq+CfO4swuRAEB9H2CuYeb/zef2K4UofRa5A7Rtc0//LSpK r1yKpSqHU1KeA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4R4Gwk3bqyz9rxN; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:28:38 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -53 X-Spam_score: -5.4 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307920 Archived-At: writes: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 08:19:10PM +0000, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > > [...] > >> scenarios. And in general lookup as well as hash tables start to >> outperform alists just at 20-30 elements [1] > > For me, it's more like 45-ish: Right. The link I provided actually also mentions similar number. > How many people around here have regularly 1000 buffers? Well. Check out https://github.com/org-roam/org-roam People routinely deal with thousands of buffers there and complain about that. I also did a benchmark for opening several thousands of files in Emacs and the performance was quite disappointing. (Though, admittedly, not because of `get-file-buffer'). > And even at 100, the absolute time is rather negligible. Somewhere > near 5000 buffers my (not very fast) machine reaches the 100ms > area for alists and lingers in the 2ms area for hashes (that would > be where I'd start worrying). 100ms is fast when you do it once. But `get-file-buffer' may be called rather frequently by `with-temp-buffer'. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at