On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 04:08:26PM EST, Charles Campbell wrote: > Chris Jones wrote:
Hello Charles, > > I tried it with a fairly large tree called ~/tarballs and it took > > over a minute, with Vim flying at 100% CPU. There was a message to > > the effect that it was indexing/caching the nodes or something. Now > > the weird thing is that in another test, my home directory, which > > contains the tarballs tree only took 3-4 seconds - go figure. > > > > Actually I did the same test again with another instance of Vim, > > naturally, in order to take a closer look at the message, same > > tarballs directory and this time it only took about two seconds. > > > > So it looks as if there are glitches when it takes forever, and > > normal circumstances where it takes somwhere between 3-5 seconds to > > load a directory, why is too slow to my taste. > > > > I'll try to run tests again when I have more time. > Would you try this with netrw? Shoot.. :-( I mean.. I meant to mention in my post about having no such problem with netrw and one thing leading to another.. I just forgot. Speculating that there might be a problem with NERDTree.vim, either when it runs into a particular directory setup, or possibly some vim option I have set that slows it down to a crawl, or some clash with another plugin... etc. > Since you seem to like tree mode, put > > let g:netrw_liststyle= 3 > > in your .vimrc. In a directory of mine with 245 files: (and loading all > my usual plugins, etc) > > time gvim . -c "q" > real 0m0.22s > user 0m0.17s > sys 0m0.02s Sure, don't have the time right now but the test I ran was just a couple of directories accessed via: $ cd ~/a/large/directory/tree $ vim . $ cd ~/another/large/directory $ vim . I'll take a closer look later today. Thank you for your comments, CJ -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
