Hi Dan, Many long weeks ago I said: >> One other thing I realized when testing is that the change in >> r10945 to generate recurring events in range more efficiently is >> likely to help rendering of calendars with significant numbers of >> non-recurring events in the past, without much gain for calendars >> that have mostly recurring events. As it happens, our performance >> tests are using a calendar with 2689 recurring events (times 9 >> occurrences each) and 311 non-recurring events.
Dan said: > I think you are reversing the count of recurring and non-recurring > events. (\chandler\tools\QATestScripts\DataFiles\Generated3000.ics) > actually has: 311 recurring events that each recur 9 times giving a > total occurrence of (311 x 9 = 2799) and 2689 non-recurring events > > just try this as a quick test: grep -c RRULE > tools/QATestScripts/DataFiles/Generated3000.ics Right you are! I don't know how I managed to screw that up, obviously I grepped for RRULE or I wouldn't have gotten the exact number 311, but somehow I reversed the numbers. OK, so I think our test data is fine then. Thanks! Sincerely, Jeffrey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
