On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:17:59 -0500, servilio <servilio@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Given that this change is about display of search results, I have the > suspicion that the following two factors might be more relevant: > > - size of the Emacs frame: bigger would mean more threads to show > > - composition of the search results, specially length of the threads > displayed, as the longer they go, the more hidden text there will be > > And because of this, though you might already have a proper method for > measuring it, the results are different. I thought about this because > my searches have only ~180 threads, yet I could notice the difference. > Definitely valid points, but these aren't likely to have affected my test results, as every iteration started a fresh instance of Emacs, full-screen, on the same screen, with the same query on the same dataset, whilst ensuring -to a feasible degree- that Emacs was the only thing vying for CPU time. After including `redisplay' in the script (as suggested by Austin [1]), I did get consistent results as well as a measurable performance improvement due to the buffer invisibility spec patch. As for the tests using `elp-instrument-package' and Austin's `time-it' macro: I'm most likely just doing it wrong :) > Servilio Peace -- Pieter [1] id:"20111111052716.GU2658@mit.edu"