Community
    • Login

    Bookmark multiple lines.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Help wanted · · · – – – · · ·
    25 Posts 5 Posters 16.7k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • Scott SumnerS
      Scott Sumner @dail
      last edited by

      @dail said that @scott-sumner said:

      We’ve had some similar discussions before about how looking for markers can be slow

      Aw, cmon @dail, your memory isn’t perfect? These discussions were here. I don’t have time to revisit looking at it now, but if my memory is OK, I remember that the marker searching logic that was fast didn’t exactly correspond with how the documentation says such searching should be done, but it worked.

      dailD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • dailD
        dail @Scott Sumner
        last edited by

        @Scott-Sumner

        Aw, cmon @dail, your memory isn’t perfect?

        Oh how I wish. :)

        Though that discussion was regarding indicators, this is just dealing with markers.

        Scott SumnerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Scott SumnerS
          Scott Sumner @dail
          last edited by

          @dail said:

          Though that discussion was regarding indicators, this is just dealing with markers.

          Yea, my memory recall wasn’t perfect either, sigh…

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • Claudia FrankC
            Claudia Frank
            last edited by

            Now I’m confused, running the same script on my old single core 1.5Ghz 32bit processor
            with 32bit operating system results in

            test((), {}) -> None took 0.608999967575 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.733999967575 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.790999889374 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.677000045776 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.704999923706 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.678999900818 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.878000020981 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.634999990463 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.706000089645 seconds
            test((), {}) -> None took 0.753000020981 seconds
            

            Previous result was an old dual core 2.0Ghz 64bit processor on 64bit operating system, but
            using 32bit notepad++ (wine api layer issue??)

            Cheers
            Claudia

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Claudia FrankC
              Claudia Frank
              last edited by

              and now I’m …

              lua_markerAdd took 0.11399999999958 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11599999999999 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11799999999948 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.12899999999991 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11400000000049 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11599999999999 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11499999999978 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11400000000049 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11400000000049 seconds
              lua_markerAdd took 0.11499999999978 seconds
              
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.81100010872 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.80900001526 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.68000006676 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 8.02199983597 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.70700001717 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.73000001907 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.84200000763 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.71900010109 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.76399993896 seconds
              py_markerAdd((), {}) -> None took 7.83399987221 seconds
              

              tested on same machine, with marking lines 100 to 3899

              I mean, two times faster can be explained but 80 times faster.
              There must be something specific which slows down the execution.

              Cheers
              Claudia

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • Claudia FrankC
                Claudia Frank
                last edited by

                by using direct function pointer it is a little bit faster ;-)

                DirectFunction took 0.111000061035 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.147000074387 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.148999929428 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.146000146866 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.154000043869 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.271999835968 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.24799990654 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.164999961853 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.164999961853 seconds
                DirectFunction took 0.171000003815 seconds
                

                Cheers
                Claudia

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • Claudia FrankC
                  Claudia Frank
                  last edited by

                  and with some performance optimization, same test, same machine,

                  DirectFunction took 0.0729999542236 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0710000991821 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0720000267029 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0729999542236 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0769999027252 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0739998817444 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                  DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                  

                  Enough performance testing from my side :-)
                  Still curious why wrapped call is so slow.

                  Cheers
                  Claudia

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • guy038G
                    guy038
                    last edited by guy038

                    Hello, @dail, @scott-sumner, @claudia-frank, and All,

                    Ah, I didn’t think that my slowness’s feeling, regarding that script, would lead to so many posts ;-))

                    I realize that I was quite vague, about the results of the test. So I did, again, the test with both :

                    • Python v1.0.8.0

                    • Lua v0.6.0.0

                    installed, in a N++ v7.4.2 local configuration, on a old Win XP SP3 platform, with 1Go of RAM, only !

                    The python test script was :

                    for line_nbr in range(100, 12400):
                        editor.markerAdd(line_nbr, 24)
                    

                    And the Lua test script was :

                    for line_nbr = 100, 12400 do
                        editor:MarkerAdd(line_nbr, 24)
                    end
                    

                    Results if applied on a classical .txt file, containing 12436 lines, with size = 613,527 bytes :

                    • 1m and 59s for the Python script

                    • 0.5s, approximatively, for the Lua script

                    Really awesome, isn’t it ?! How to explain such a difference ??


                    BTW, Dail, I ran the command, below, in the Lua Console. Not sure, however, that it’s the right syntax !

                    dofile("Dail_Bookmark.lua")
                    

                    Now, Dail, an other problem !

                    My first idea, for doing the test, was to install the Lua last version ( 0.7.1.0 ). Unfortunately, when starting N++, I got a tiny window, with the message Unknown exception. After validation, this windows disappeared but the lua plugin was not uploaded ( Quite sure that uploaded is not the right English word but I hope I will be understood ! ) That issue also occurs with the v0.7.0.0 version ! So, the last Lua plugin correct version is v0.6.0.0, on my XP machine.

                    Probably, this happens on Win WP platforms, exclusively ? But, dail, it’s not that important. Indeed, Don Ho, seemingly, considers not supporting, soon, Win XP, anymore ! Refer :

                    https://notepad-plus-plus.org/community/topic/15003/notepad-7-5-4-release/26

                    Nevertheless, thanks, by advance, for any investigation, on that matter !

                    Best Regards,

                    guy038

                    Update :

                    I’ve just done the test, twice, again, with the Python script ==> A bit better : 1m and 33s , approximatively !!

                    dailD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • dailD
                      dail @guy038
                      last edited by

                      @guy038

                      Some very interesting results for sure, I can’t say much as to why the PythonScript version is so much slower and I am very unfamiliar with the Python/C API. Maybe someone more knowledgeable has some ideas.

                      Unfortunately, when starting N++, I got a tiny window, with the message Unknown exception.

                      Sorry to hear the newer versions are not working for you, and I agree it is probably related to Windows XP. Between versions 0.6.0 and 0.7.0 I did update to VS2015 and it also uses a newer runtime. Even though it is suppose to be compatible with XP there still seems to be a problem as you have found out. Personally I do not have access to an XP machine any more so any XP related issues will probably go unfixed unless someone submits a pull request fixing them.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Claudia FrankC
                        Claudia Frank
                        last edited by

                        I don’t think file size matters, I did a test with a 100mb file as well as with
                        file containing just enough carriage returns -> result is the same.

                        I haven’t found out yet why PythonScript(PS) is so slow in this case and it must be
                        something how PS handles the wrapped call because when using PS and the
                        Direct_Function call then I do get results like this

                        DirectFunction took 0.0729999542236 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0710000991821 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0720000267029 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0729999542236 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0769999027252 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0739998817444 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                        DirectFunction took 0.0759999752045 seconds
                        

                        Cheers
                        Claudia

                        dailD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • dailD
                          dail @Claudia Frank
                          last edited by

                          @Claudia-Frank

                          I did some poking around…and installed PythonScript (I haven’t used it in years). When I ran some test code, one of the first things I realized is that it is that Scintilla is being redrawn multiple times when using PythonScript. I verified this by catching the SCN_UPDATEUI event in Lua. The LuaScript call generates 1 event, using PythonScript generates numerous events…not always the same amount (normally about 50% of however many bookmarks were added). It probably also generates numerous SCN_MODIFIED events?

                          You might try a similar test with PythonScript which doesn’t generate any type of side effect, something simple like SCI_STYLEGETFORE which should be a very fast and simple call.

                          Claudia FrankC 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                          • Claudia FrankC
                            Claudia Frank @dail
                            last edited by

                            @dail

                            thanks for looking into this.
                            I will give it a try and let you know.

                            Cheers
                            Claudia

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • Claudia FrankC
                              Claudia Frank @dail
                              last edited by

                              @dail

                              Good job, I guess that is the area which needs investigation, yes.
                              I tested with synchronous and asynchronous callbacks - result was more or less the same.

                              If I
                              added markers for 30 lines it report one aditional updateui event,
                              adding markers to 290 lines it added 3 additional event
                              adding markers to 3800 lines it added 40 additional events

                              lua reported only 1 event in all cases, the same is true if using Direct_Function call.

                              Cheers
                              Claudia

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • guy038G
                                guy038
                                last edited by

                                Hello, @dail,

                                Did you see that post :

                                https://notepad-plus-plus.org/community/topic/15089/notepad-file-status-auto-detection-not-working/37

                                It seems that @vitaliy-dovgan found out a solution, regarding VS2015 and the auto-detection problem, in XP

                                So, given that information, may be, after few modifications, we could have the Lua v7.0 and Lua v7.1 plugins working nice on XP platforms ? Just an intuition but I hope so !

                                Cheers,

                                guy038

                                dailD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • dailD
                                  dail @guy038
                                  last edited by

                                  @guy038

                                  Unfortunately I’m not sure if that’s the cause of issues with LuaScript running on XP. I know that the plugin itself doesn’t use that type of function call. I’m not sure if the Lua interpreter does underneath…if so it’s probably not something I care to dig into.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • Alan KilbornA Alan Kilborn referenced this topic on
                                  • Alan KilbornA Alan Kilborn referenced this topic on
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  The Community of users of the Notepad++ text editor.
                                  Powered by NodeBB | Contributors