[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       nepomuk
Subject:    Re: [Nepomuk] Nepomuk::ResourceWatcher: Performance issues
From:       Sebastian_Trüg <sebastian () trueg ! de>
Date:       2012-04-15 17:18:35
Message-ID: 4F8B02EB.4060401 () trueg ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

I just saw that you only copied the header and link to
"nepomukdatamanagement". In that case there is no need for the header
since you depend on kde-runtime anyway. :)

On 04/14/2012 10:21 PM, Peter Penz wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 10:02 PM, Sebastian Tr=FCg wrote:
>> On 04/06/2012 02:48 PM, Peter Penz wrote:
> [...]
>>> - Invoking ResourceWatcher::addResource() after invoking
>>> ResourceWatcher::start() has no effect. As workaround before adding a
>>> resource I needed to invoke ResourceWatcher::stop(), add the resource
>>> and invoke ResourceWatcher::start() again. The problem with this
>>> workaround is the performance: Calling stop() clears e.g. 15000 items
>>> and calling start() after adding one resource adds 15001 items again. In
>>> the case of the directory with 20000 this might take up a few seconds
>>> for each (!) of the items in the upper-range.
>>
>> I implemented support for that a while ago. Where did you copy the RW
>> from?
> =

> Sounds good ;-) I've copied it from the KDE/4.8 branch due to the
> kdelibs-freeze - I did not check the other branches, but probably you
> pushed it to the frameworks branch?
> _______________________________________________
> Nepomuk mailing list
> Nepomuk@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
> =

_______________________________________________
Nepomuk mailing list
Nepomuk@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]