From xemacs-m  Tue Apr 22 13:48:21 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17524
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:48:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcmkh11287; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QQcmkh11287.199704221846@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: too many symbols make XEmacs slow?
In-Reply-To: <m22083rppo.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <vwm3esogoho.fsf@calico.cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<199704221159.NAA02757@daedalus.tnt.uni-hannover.de>
	<m22083rppo.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.28 under 20.2 XEmacs Lucid (beta1)
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Steven L Baur writes:
 > Has anyone stopped to consider the fact that part of the
 > slowness of XEmacs may be related to the number of symbols in
 > the symbol table?

I can image that for loading file, if we have a poor hash
function or the hashtalbe is too small.  I can see it for
symbol name completion, which looks at all the symbol in the
system.  But not much else.  I undef'd LRECORD_SYMBOL a while
ago and XEmacs ran a few percent faster.

