From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Joakim Jalap Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Overlay tree. Stuck again Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:26:44 +0100 Message-ID: <87k29zqbmj.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <874m14rnl7.fsf@fastmail.com> <83eg07cr91.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziivqilc.fsf@fastmail.com> <8360ljcbfi.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1484317672 14699 195.159.176.226 (13 Jan 2017 14:27:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:27:52 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (berkeley-unix) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 13 15:27:48 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2pK-00027r-Mv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:27:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41508 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2pP-0005GH-8f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:27:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56479) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2of-0005Fo-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:26:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2oe-0000uJ-Fv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:26:53 -0500 Original-Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:49801) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2oa-0000r6-NI; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:26:48 -0500 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EC320A34; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:26:46 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:26:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Q8PTGrllO4+3+bhBkmZIusvE/3E=; b=gc8UcV /ysgyqmDljN75w3gVEmJt98wkWc4IpzIoEAMb5Tpw8W1B+N62bjJiBXA7BsifmXR c0FNCLGw1haUs+KyaU0LzqxPs901RUpnKZCh8ljqVpOpaBxAleXStSjHDPf3BZgC NpefdnF8RYPXGRWqNE+KvXtDcyhkGtFhq2oc0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=Q8PTGrllO4+3+b hBkmZIusvE/3E=; b=ltXrveheA8yV8BNIlV4iy/PuTpHFo9MlnLsU4XPwSZi1t9 E57Z/t9VasRZU/M/wK6rWrwt+Ld/17ExLc/q9A4JONUwT3PUJ+bFfI1u2xOWk7cC rNbAt6KPYvsTX8oql+Gm3GFwg3EJWY7eg6ayJYRayRpBLC8HNt9oqyalLRr9A= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: oPnOX7iG9GLcB2IDWMzGLAJ+x0EF4VZbaI1Oh55FysCu 1484317605 Original-Received: from genserv (unknown [5.150.202.248]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5C6A47E3B9; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:26:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <8360ljcbfi.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:54:41 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 66.111.4.26 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211250 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Joakim Jalap >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:56:15 +0100 >> >> > This might be a silly idea, but did you try removing them from the >> > tree, and then re-adding them? (I assume that adding a node will >> > produce an ordered tree.) >> >> Yes, that is the "big hammer" approach :) I hae thought about it, but I >> think the problem is that it will be too expensive. > > I suggest to implement it and time it. You might be surprised. Even > if you are right, and it is indeed too expensive, you will at the very > least have a base-line performance figure against which you could > compare the alternative solutions. > If the 43rd fails I will try it :) Actually I'm afraid it will be too slow anyway. It seems a lot of the use of overlays is not as "static" as one would like. For example magit deletes and recreates its overlays every time point moves, even if they stay in the same place. For such uses I guess a linked list will be a lot faster than a self balancing tree. But first I will try to make it work at all :)