Yakov Lerner wrote:
> I identified which functions are slow and which are fast out of functions
> called (load_dummy_buffer() + wipe_dummy_buffer()) pair.
>
> As I wrote earlier this pair of functions is what slows down vimgrep,
> not the search. The loop of 1000x (load_dummy_buffer() + wipe_dummy_buffer(=
> ))
> takes 30 seconds per 1000 pairs on my machine (800 MHZ). These tests
> are on empty files, so data size is not a problem. No regexp searching is
> performed.
>
> Results:
>
> check_need_swap() - 50% major contributor to slowdown
> ml_open() - 30% 2nd contributor
> setfname() - 19% surprise, surprise
>
> The rest of functions are blazingly fast, take <1% of time.
> Fast functions (negligible overhead) include:
> - wipe_dummy_buffer()
> - buf_copy_options()
> - buflist_new()
> - aucmd_prepbuf()
> - aucmd_restbuf()
>
> I don't have real results for readfile() because I
> tested on empty files. But on empty file readfile() works fast.
If creating the swap file takes so much time, something strange is
happening. Are you on a network filesystem perhaps? What system is
this anyway?
Testing with empty files may give a wrong impression. Try something
like:
:vimgrep notaword $VIMRUNTIME/**/*.vim
The .vim files are relatively small.
I tried doing a bit of profiling, but it gets confused by the loops and
reports bogus results.
--
Zen Microsystems: we're the om in .commmmmmmmm
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
