JD Smith <jdtsm...@gmail.com> writes: Hi,
> I appreciate your thoughts and testing, and am glad you could > reproduce the problem. Using exactly the same “plain TAB-based” > testing setup you proposed with my local server on a wired connection, > I can still certainly see a difference starting from *scratch* vs. a > remote buffer. Both of us, or at least I, have just a gut feeling about *slow* and *not slow*. It would be better if we could compare figures. Let me contemplate about, how to configure such a benchmark for file name completion. > If you had any thoughts on how I could investigate what might lead to > such a discrepancy, even with normal TAB-based remote file-path > completion, I’d be grateful. Does tramp setup any extra hooks or > callbacks when starting from a remote buffer, for example? Not that I am aware of. However, Tramp works with caches, and perhaps it makes a difference here whether your default-directory is remote or local. More general, the pattern (file-remote-p default-directory) is very common over Emacs Lisp code. Many packages apply such a check, and behave differently depending whether the result is nil or non-nil. Let me think over night, what we could do for checking (yes, I often have my best ideas in bed, when I cannot sleep :-) Perhaps you have also ideas for benchmarking. Tomorrow I'm busy with my family, but latest on Monday we shall start the hunt. > Thanks, > JDS Best regards, Michael.
