Re: File path completions: strange speed discrepancy

[Michael Albinus]

JD Smith <jdtsmith@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

> I appreciate your thoughts and testing, and am glad you could
> reproduce the problem.  Using exactly the same “plain TAB-based”
> testing setup you proposed with my local server on a wired connection,
> I can still certainly see a difference starting from *scratch* vs. a
> remote buffer.

Both of us, or at least I, have just a gut feeling about *slow* and *not
slow*. It would be better if we could compare figures. Let me
contemplate about, how to configure such a benchmark for file name
completion.

> If you had any thoughts on how I could investigate what might lead to
> such a discrepancy, even with normal TAB-based remote file-path
> completion, I’d be grateful.  Does tramp setup any extra hooks or
> callbacks when starting from a remote buffer, for example?

Not that I am aware of. However, Tramp works with caches, and perhaps it
makes a difference here whether your default-directory is remote or local.

More general, the pattern (file-remote-p default-directory) is very
common over Emacs Lisp code. Many packages apply such a check, and
behave differently depending whether the result is nil or non-nil. 

Let me think over night, what we could do for checking (yes, I often
have my best ideas in bed, when I cannot sleep :-) Perhaps you have also
ideas for benchmarking.

Tomorrow I'm busy with my family, but latest on Monday we shall start
the hunt.

> Thanks, 
> JDS

Best regards, Michael.