Yakov Lerner wrote:
From two experiments below, it follows that vimgrep time
is dominated (75-99%) by some overhead of file opening, while
while searching is small fraction of [current] vimgrep time (1-15%)
Here are two experiments by which I tried to tell apart
two parts of vimgrep,
(1) the p
On 4/28/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> > How much extra time does it take to read the marks from the .viminfo
> > file?
>
> There are 1358 files in $VIMRUNTIME (vim7f).
> Executint this with no :au commands (vim -u NONE)
> TIM vimgrep klslkjljklkj $VIMRUNT
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> > > > On 4/27/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Before even thinking of disabling autocommands, we first need proof
> > > > > that
> > > > > this actually changes the search time more than a few percent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Above that, if BufRead autoc
On 4/28/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> > On 4/27/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Before even thinking of disabling autocommands, we first need proof that
> > > this actually changes the search time more than a few percent.
> > >
> > > Abo
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> > On 4/27/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Before even thinking of disabling autocommands, we first need proof that
> > > this actually changes the search time more than a few percent.
> > >
> > > Above that, if BufRead autocommands take so much time there
On 4/27/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before even thinking of disabling autocommands, we first need proof that
> this actually changes the search time more than a few percent.
>
> Above that, if BufRead autocommands take so much time there is probably
> something wrong with them.
On 4/27/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Eric Arnold wrote:
>
> > That will probably do for now. Thanks.
> >
> > However, having a flag would be a good thing, since it would allow
> > future modifications to vimgrep to be encapsulated in the flag.
> > Meaning, in the future, :vi
Eric Arnold wrote:
> That will probably do for now. Thanks.
>
> However, having a flag would be a good thing, since it would allow
> future modifications to vimgrep to be encapsulated in the flag.
> Meaning, in the future, :vimgrep /pattern/fast would not
> necessarily be synonymous with
That will probably do for now. Thanks.
However, having a flag would be a good thing, since it would allow
future modifications to vimgrep to be encapsulated in the flag.
Meaning, in the future, :vimgrep /pattern/fast would not
necessarily be synonymous with :set eventignore=all
On 4/27/
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 07:44:24AM -0600, Eric Arnold wrote:
> I would be nice to have a flag for vimgrep to skip all the filetype
> slow stuff when you want to do a large grep, and you know you don't
> care about .gz files, etc., which I almost never do.
In an earlier post on this thread, Br
I would be nice to have a flag for vimgrep to skip all the filetype
slow stuff when you want to do a large grep, and you know you don't
care about .gz files, etc., which I almost never do.
On 4/27/06, Benji Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:24:00PM -0700, Hari Krishn
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:24:00PM -0700, Hari Krishna Dara wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 at 10:01pm, Yakov Lerner wrote:
>
> > 1. I did
> >
> > :20verb vimgrep lakslaskjda $VIMRUNTIME/**
> >
> > and found, to my surprise, that vim sources .viminfo and
> > executes 'au BufRead' for *every*
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 at 10:01pm, Yakov Lerner wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Eric Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm using win32 gvim70f. If I use the externan Cygwin grep
> >
> > grep -i -r vimgrep .
> >
> > it returns the results in under a second.
> >
> > :vimgrep vimgrep **
> >
> > takes about 2
Dnia niedziela, 23 kwietnia 2006 18:03, Eric Arnold napisał:
> Am I doing something wrong, or is :vimgrep about 10x slower than a
> shell grep?
It is faster when looking in current file and slower when scanning
multiple files. Reason for that is probably fact Vim is traditionally
slow with I/O o
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Eric Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm using win32 gvim70f. If I use the externan Cygwin grep
> >
> > grep -i -r vimgrep .
> >
> > it returns the results in under a second.
> >
> > :vimgrep vimgrep **
> >
> > takes about 20 seconds.
>
> 1. I did
>
>
Eric Arnold wrote:
I'm using win32 gvim70f. If I use the externan Cygwin grep
grep -i -r vimgrep .
it returns the results in under a second.
:vimgrep vimgrep **
takes about 20 seconds.
Without having looked at the code, let me assume that vimgrep is simply
re-using its regular expressio
On 4/26/06, Eric Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using win32 gvim70f. If I use the externan Cygwin grep
>
> grep -i -r vimgrep .
>
> it returns the results in under a second.
>
> :vimgrep vimgrep **
>
> takes about 20 seconds.
1. I did
:20verb vimgrep lakslaskjda $VIMRUNTIME/**
and
I'm using win32 gvim70f. If I use the externan Cygwin grep
grep -i -r vimgrep .
it returns the results in under a second.
:vimgrep vimgrep **
takes about 20 seconds.
On 4/26/06, Benji Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 10:03:26AM -0600, Eric Arnold wrote:
> > Am I doi
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 10:03:26AM -0600, Eric Arnold wrote:
> Am I doing something wrong, or is :vimgrep about 10x slower than a
> shell grep?
I have not tested, but I assume that there is less overhead in
calling :vimgrep (internal) than the external grep. I would not be
surprised if the
Am I doing something wrong, or is :vimgrep about 10x slower than a shell grep?
20 matches
Mail list logo
