|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#42966: |
Date: | Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:44:57 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 |
On 26.10.2020 23:02, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:On 26.10.2020 22:13, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:Oops; you were talking about the other cache patch here, not my proposed patch. Oh, well.Yes, it was a side investigation to clear up the irregularity in your testing.I guess we'll find out if my patch leads to performance regressions now, then. :-)
Yeah, all right. In my testing locally it's fast enough (1000 iterations is plenty).I'd test with an actual remote host, though: when the ping is >100ms (a regular occurrence in my life: ping 8.8.8.8 is 73ms, though I don't often use Tramp), the cost of one process call would look different.
But anyway, if Michael doesn't object to this change, I definitely won't argue.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |