Subject: RE: remapGlyph caching (was Re: Win32 performance results)
From: Tomas Frydrych (tomas@frydrych.uklinux.net)
Date: Sat Mar 10 2001 - 05:04:35 CST
> Better to do it and worry about the memory consumption later. Sounds
> like a decent amount of trouble to keep track of when a text run
> leaves the display so the cached text can be discarded. (Good job for
> another background process similar to spell checking.) After all, I
> could be misremembering, but I believe at this point that our text
> runs are relatively small and get coalesced at export time. (I think
> the infrastructure is there for on the fly coalescing, but is it ever
> called?) Compare the size of chunks of text to the size of the C++
> objects holding them and duplicating the text all of a sudden doesn't
> seem to be the critical path.
The absolute increase of the memory requirements is not related to
the the size of the runs, basically, we will be duplicating every
character in the doc; this is not to say I am against the chaching.
I think you are right that we currently do not coalesce runs on the
fly, but we will need to do this at some point to be able to handle
large documents, at that stage duplicating the text will become
more noticeable. But, we can deal with it one step at the time.
Tomas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Mar 10 2001 - 05:05:38 CST