| 1 |
The speed problem i have is that really small things like |
| 2 |
"portageq" takes more than one second to get a simple variable. |
| 3 |
Maybe 1.5sec doesn't sound that much but you'll see that it's |
| 4 |
very annoying when small shellscript wait 1.5secs before they |
| 5 |
even get a simple variable. Even worse if you query more things. |
| 6 |
Because of this i still do everything the ugly way and define |
| 7 |
Variables on the top of each scripts instead of using the tools |
| 8 |
provided by portage. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:46:10AM -0800, Bob Miller wrote: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Second, is there anything wrong with Python as an implementation |
| 13 |
> language? If you think Python is too slow, think again. On nearly |
| 14 |
> every portage operation I do, the CPU is mostly idle -- it's the disk |
| 15 |
> that's thrashing (according to gkrellm). The key to improving |
| 16 |
> portage's performance is to get it to open fewer files. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives