From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/74532 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Christensen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Improving Gnus speed Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:30:29 -0500 Message-ID: <87aaks53my.fsf@uwo.ca> References: <87zktemkwl.fsf@uwo.ca> <87vd42mdci.fsf@uwo.ca> <87r5e555e0.fsf@uwo.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291059075 17344 80.91.229.12 (29 Nov 2010 19:31:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:31:15 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M22891@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Nov 29 20:31:11 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PN9RN-0000mZ-1C for ding-account@gmane.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:31:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PN9Qz-0001ip-Na; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:30:45 -0600 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PN9Qy-0001ib-DW for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:30:44 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PN9Qx-0002fk-7F for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:30:44 -0600 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1PN9Qw-0008HZ-00 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:30:42 +0100 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PN9Qw-0000br-CB for ding@gnus.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:30:42 +0100 Original-Received: from bas3-london14-1096779322.dsl.bell.ca ([65.95.134.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:30:42 +0100 Original-Received: from jdc by bas3-london14-1096779322.dsl.bell.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:30:42 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: bas3-london14-1096779322.dsl.bell.ca User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ic1am9iYfwPqqXkyfPIbiMb2JRI= X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:74532 Archived-At: Francis Moreau writes: > Dan Christensen writes: > >> In my tests, if one of the sort functions is >> gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date, then the above takes almost as >> long as sorting all of the children too, since it needs to convert >> *all* time strings to emacs times, and that dominates. > > Why are all time strings converted to emacs times in that case ? Because to know the most recent date in a thread, you have to compare all of the dates of articles in that thread. If you only want to sort by the date of the root of the thread, then you switch to a sort function with a slightly different name, and you would then find that sorting just the top level threads is much faster than also sorting all children as well. (On the other hand, I think later in the summary buffer preparation process, Gnus would take the time to convert all date strings to emacs times *anyways*, for display in the summary buffer. So the *overall* time for Summary buffer generation would be about the same no matter which of the sort methods you used.) Dan