Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Project indexing time disparity

Title: Project indexing time disparity
Forgot to follow up on this one - this was simply a matter of having the "C/C++ Index" view open during the indexing.  I used to have that view open quite frequently to check symbol counts.  Sigh.

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kennedy, Stephen M (Steve)
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:59 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: [cdt-dev] Project indexing time disparity

I'm running eclipse on a 16 1.35G processor sparc system (quite slow).  I create CDT C++ projects from directories that are already populated with the source files.  I use a custom project type that supplies the file settings for each file.

After creating the project within eclipse, it takes about 30-40 minutes for the indexer to complete, except occasionally (1 out of 10 times?) it only takes ~13 minutes.

Rebuilding the index seems to always take 30-40 minutes (so far I've never seen it take less time).

The index is ~140M and the symbols counts are approx 6K files, 50K macros, 230K symbols, 1.7M references, 140K decls, and 140K defs.  The rebuild index always gives the same symbol counts.  The initial indexing on project creation varies in the symbol counts but < %5.  The reason for the variance is that the CDT project create refreshes the workspace in the background which causes the indexing to occur in 2-8 "chunks".

Recently (with help from this list) I wrote an eclipse application to create the project programmatically.  In order to get consistent index results, I "cloned" CCorePlugin.createCDTProject() and made the workspace refresh on happen in the foreground.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that when I create projects using the app, the indexing consistently takes ~13 minutes and produces the same results as the "rebuild index".

Any ideas what the disparity in indexing times are due to?

Steve Kennedy

Back to the top