Re: speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Nov 12 12:34:02 2003
|
This is a very nice measurement you made and helps me a lot. I will
incorporte your suggestions into the next version. Under Windows however,
there is no -HUP signal, so that won't work for them. But what I can easily
|
|
Re: speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Nov 20 17:55:57 2003
|
I implemented the new scheme where
- under Windows, the configuration is only checked once every access
|
Re: speed is very slow if logbook contains many entries, posted by Etienne Van Caillie on Mon Nov 24 10:25:10 2003
|
> I implemented the new scheme where
>
> - under Windows, the configuration is only checked once every access
|
speeding up elog : gcc compile optimizations, posted by Fred Hooper on Tue Jul 27 18:33:52 2004
|
Elog is a great program, but it can be slow.
I noticed that the gcc compiler options in the tarball Makefile were not
|
|
Re: speeding up elog : gcc compile optimizations, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Jul 28 15:03:17 2004
|
> I noticed that the gcc compiler options in the tarball Makefile were not
> conducive to speed. There, I tried changing the gcc options to:
>
|
|
Re: speeding up elog : gcc compile optimizations, posted by Fred Hooper on Sat Jul 31 16:55:21 2004
|
> > I noticed that the gcc compiler options in the tarball Makefile were not
> > conducive to speed. There, I tried changing the gcc options to:
> >
|
|
Re: speeding up elog : gcc compile optimizations, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Aug 2 09:05:48 2004
|
> Is there something else which is making this difficult to do?
Not really, but hsearch() & Co. are not available under Windows, so I have to extract the
|
Re: speeding up elog : gcc compile optimizations, posted by Drew on Tue Aug 3 16:59:36 2004
|
> > Is there something else which is making this difficult to do?
>
> Not really, but hsearch() & Co. are not available under Windows, so I have to extract the
|