Add --no-syntax option #3102
Closed
Add --no-syntax option #3102
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Before ``` Benchmark 1: seq 10000000 | bat Time (mean ± σ): 6.235 s ± 0.052 s [User: 3.664 s, System: 2.714 s] Range (min … max): 6.172 s … 6.355 s 10 runs ``` After ``` Benchmark 1: seq 10000000 | ./target/release/bat Time (mean ± σ): 215.9 ms ± 5.1 ms [User: 275.4 ms, System: 38.8 ms] Range (min … max): 210.3 ms … 224.9 ms 10 runs ``` Using `less` for comparison ``` Benchmark 1: seq 10000000 | less Time (mean ± σ): 637.3 ms ± 43.3 ms [User: 642.1 ms, System: 95.6 ms] Range (min … max): 584.5 ms … 700.1 ms 10 runs ``` And raw ``` Benchmark 1: seq 10000000 Time (mean ± σ): 63.1 ms ± 1.3 ms [User: 57.1 ms, System: 5.9 ms] Range (min … max): 62.1 ms … 66.0 ms 10 runs ``` Signed-off-by: Mohammad AlSaleh <[email protected]>
When using plain output, calls to `highlight_regions_for_line()` may cause a lot of overhead for little gain. So add a new option `--no-syntax` that skips syntax highlighting. It only has effect for plain output. This change is made in a way that preserves backwards compatibility and doesn't break any tests. Here is a test-case. Without `--no-syntax` ``` Benchmark 1: seq 10000000 | ./target/release/bat -pf Time (mean ± σ): 7.899 s ± 0.195 s [User: 7.962 s, System: 0.076 s] Range (min … max): 7.587 s … 8.095 s 10 runs ``` With `--no-syntax` ``` Benchmark 1: seq 10000000 | ./target/release/bat -pf --no-syntax Time (mean ± σ): 636.7 ms ± 42.9 ms [User: 696.8 ms, System: 41.2 ms] Range (min … max): 603.5 ms … 715.5 ms 10 runs ``` Signed-off-by: Mohammad AlSaleh <[email protected]>
|
Numbers above are with the buffer writer change applied from #3101. Without both, we get: |
|
can we somehow be "smart" so users don't need a new option? |
|
for my understanding: why not use |
Enselic
added
the
waiting-on-author
|
This should be closed actually, together with the other PR. This one is just wrong. And I've come up with a new approach that works for #3101. I just want to explore alternative ways to do syntax highlighting first, because syntect is the only slow part remaining. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When using plain output, calls to
highlight_regions_for_line()may cause a lot of overhead for little gain.
So add a new option
--no-syntaxthat skips syntax highlighting.It only has effect for plain output.
This change is made in a way that preserves backwards compatibility and
doesn't break any tests.
Here is a test-case.
Without
--no-syntaxWith
--no-syntax