Re: Speed difference in Gnus

Hrvoje> Uwe Brauer <oub(a)mat.ucm.es&gt; writes: Hrvoje> If "in garbage collection" comes first, it means you need to bump Hrvoje> `gc-cons-threshold' to something reasonable. 2000000 is probably a Hrvoje> good start. Hrvoje> Then, don't forget that the profile* family of functions Hrvoje> *accumulate* profile results, meaning that the displayed Hrvoje> summary doesn't contain the latest profiling run, but a sum Hrvoje> of all profiling runs. This can be surprising if you spend Hrvoje> some time testing the profiler and then want to produce Hrvoje> "real" data. In that case you need to use `M-x Hrvoje> clear-profiling-info'. Thanks, I followed both advised now the profiling results start like --8<------------------------schnipp------------------------->8--- Function Name Ticks/Total %Usage Calls GC-Usage/ Total ===========================================/===== ====== ===== ========/======= (in garbage collection) 49/ 0 13.462 get-text-property 30/ 0 8.242 16616 next-single-property-change 30/ 0 8.242 13926 --8<------------------------schnapp------------------------->8--- And given your comment above I doubt that the change of gc-cons-threshold had any effect. I also start to wonder where the problem lies? so far copying 80 msg from imap folder to imap folder did not show a significant difference in speed between gnus emacs and xemacs, *however* when I try to copy 160 msg then gnus emacs needs nearly twice the time compared to the 80 while xemacs simply get stuck and I have to abort. I may try to interpolate between the 80 and 160 msg in order to see where the two start to diverge. Uwe