[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Too long completion delay time in LISP interaction mode.

From: Tassilo Horn
Subject: Re: Too long completion delay time in LISP interaction mode.
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:49:40 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.7.0; emacs 29.0.50

Hongyi Zhao <> writes:

>> First, I'd try to isolate where the slowdown happens.  The
>> screenshots suggests you are using company-mode with custom hacks to
>> get the numbering of candidates and you are using some fuzzy
>> completion-style.
>> So I'd start with emacs -Q and typing (map<TAB> in *scratch* to get
>> the *Completions* buffer.  That will probably be fast but deliver
>> less results because of the default value of `completion-styles'.
>> Then I'd try out your settings of `completion-styles' (and
> `C-h o completion-styles RET'
> completion-styles is a variable defined in ‘minibuffer.el’.
> Its value is (hotfuzz)

Never heard of it.  But is it a suitable catch-all completion style,
i.e., suitable for using it without another more prefix-oriented style
preceeding it?  FWIW, when I type "(map", I'm most probably not
interested in having smartparens-mode, or
showing up as the top candidates but more in mapcar, mapc, mapcan, you
name it...

>> Also, using the profiler might shed some light on where the time is
>> spent, see (info "(elisp) Profiling").
> `M-x profiler-start RET cpu and mem RET'

I think you only need cpu here.

> Typeset (map) in scratch buffer, and then
> `M-x profiler-report RET', gives the following results:
>    262,542,852  87% - command-execute
>     262,542,852  87%  - funcall-interactively
>     262,538,196  87%   - counsel-M-x
>     262,538,196  87%    - let
>     262,355,940  87%     - ivy-read
>     262,355,940  87%      - apply
>     262,354,884  87%       + #<lambda 0x1b9d5ef2eb92a3f2>
>         182,256   0%     + counsel--M-x-externs

So the bottleneck is in the lambda which you didn't expand.  But I'm
also not sure if you are profiling the right thing because I don't think
that in-buffer completion (in terms of `completion-at-point-functions')
starts with M-x (or counsel-M-x).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]