Hi, On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:47:53PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > > cupt search vim 12.48s user 0.27s system 100% cpu 12.672 total > > About 70-80% of this time is parsing version entries,
I haven't looked into the code. Anything you can do to reduce the time spent in parsing version entries? > > .. at least compared with apt-cache: > > > > apt-cache search vim 1.26s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 1.321 total > > > > .. but even compared with aptitude, which isn't well > > known for its performance. > > > > aptitude search vim 1.67s user 0.04s system 99% cpu 1.719 total > > They are both based on libapt-pkg, which have pre-built version info binary > cache. It makes great speedup for most cache queries, but also leads to > obscure bugs seldom OTOH. So I am not going to implement it. Interesting. I don't know much about the internals of apt, so I cannot say if you are wrong or right. But I think that in the long term cupt should perform similar to apt-get/aptitude if it shall reach broader acceptance. Performance is actually something quiet a lot of people are concerned about in aptitude so it won't make it easier for cupt, if it even performs worse. > > I know that performance isn't really an important issue > > in such an early stage of cupt, but I report it anyway > > because IMHO its quiet important for a long-time acceptance. > > > > So, I cannot do much with this bug, at least now. I can make it wishlist, or > wontfix, or close it, what do you prefer? Well, closing a bug should never be an option. Even if its just about performance. So make it wishlist and keep it open until you've got an idea (and interest) how to solve it. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
