Re: 5291 vs. DeleteBrokenTables

From: Martin Sevior (msevior@seviorpc.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 23:27:39 EDT

  • Next message: Dom Lachowicz: "Commit: lots of spell checking changes"

    On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 08:00, Robert Wilhelm wrote:
    > On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 15:31, msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > 2. Try profiling the layout fill phase to see if there is anything in
    > > particular that is a bottleneck. We're currently using the GTK table
    > > layout algorithim which is extremely robust but might be the cause of the
    > > slow fill time in the those huge tables.
    >
    > About half of the layout fill phase is spent in
    > fpTableContainer::deleteBrokenTables. This recursive function
    > is invoked about 65M times :-(
    >
    > In fp_VerticalContainer::bumpContainers there is an interesting
    > comment:
    > //
    > // Experimental code: FIXME: Might remove after a while - check
    > // that large tables broken over many pages work fine.
    > //
    > #if 1
    > [...] deleteBrokenTables [...]
    > #endif
    >
    > Maybe Martin can elaborate a bit on this issue.
    >

    Hi Robert,
              Thanks very much for the info. This helps a lot. I think we
    don't need to deleteBroken Tables during import. I'll see if we can do
    away with this.

    In addition this also points out where I need to focus to improve
    editting performance on large documents with tables.

    Cheers

    Martin

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 22:41:50 EDT