From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37440)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jSjIB-0002Y8-1G
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:34:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jSjIA-00036u-Jx
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:34:02 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50623)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1jSjIA-00036p-7b
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:34:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jSjIA-0002dB-2d
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:34:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#39258] [PATCH v3 1/3] guix: Generate package metadata cache.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.39258.B39258.158791523010097@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
References: <20200327162654.18785-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
 <20200327162654.18785-2-arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
 <87h7x8haor.fsf@gnu.org>
 <CAJ3okZ1M=xvMS7ZQpTV5PgPKn83skLx7Vn6ty7ezY1MwsA=qaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87r1wa48n0.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1wa70wj.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 17:33:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87r1wa70wj.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> (Pierre Neidhardt's message of
 "Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:54:36 +0200")
Message-ID: <87368q45ym.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>, 39258@debbugs.gnu.org, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>

Hey!

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> It=E2=80=99s complicated.  As it stands, I=E2=80=99d rather not add over=
head to =E2=80=98guix
>> pull=E2=80=99, especially since current =E2=80=98guix search=E2=80=99 on=
 my SSD is fast enough
>> and can hardly be made any faster.
>
> The question is, what is fast enough?  I have an NVMe here that has a
> throughput of some 2GB/s, and yet
>
> time guix search emacs > /dev/null
> real    0m1.545s
> user    0m1.938s
> sys     0m0.080s

That accounts for the time to render 864 entries:

  $ guix search emacs| grep ^name| wc -l
  864

Compare with:

  $ time guix search emacs | head -100 > /dev/null

  real    0m0.674s
  user    0m0.802s
  sys     0m0.048s

Again, this is not to say it cannot be improved, but it=E2=80=99s quite a
challenge to do better on such hardware.

Though as discussed with Arun, there may be low-hanging optimization
fruits in Texinfo parsing and rendering.  I guess we need to go ahead
fire up statprof now.  :-)

Ludo=E2=80=99.