Re: archiving speed [was Re: Tips on maintaining history in Org Mode]

[Samuel Wales]

what is the current status of hierarchy in archive files?  surely they
don't deal with updating categories and updating hierarchy structure
[sounds brittle and syncy]?  i'm thinking it isn't hierarchical at
present, except when you have a doneified task with children?


On 8/11/21, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem with just using append to file is that it won't
> preserve the shape of the file. For example, if I had a file with
>
> * Notes
> ** Note 1
>    blah blah
> ** Note 2 blah blah
>
> * Tasks
> ** DONE task 1
> ** TODO Task 2
>
> and I decide to archive note 1 and task 1, I would like them to both appear
> under the same headings and with the same level. If the process just uses
> append to file, I can have this for the first archiving i.e.
>
> * Noes
> ** Note 1
>
> * Tasks
> ** DONE task 1
>
> but then later, I decide to archive note 2, if append file is used, I will
> end up with
>
> * Notes
> ** Note 1
>
> * Taks
> ** DONE task 1
>
> * Notes
> ** Note 2
>
> which is not what I want. I want
>
> * Notes
> ** Note 1
> ** Note 2
>
> * Tasks
> ** DONE Task 1
>
> So, if we want to preserve hierarchies in our archive files and not have
> everything jumbled up together, the system has to parse the file. If you
> are also using something like Categories, then even more work needs to be
> odne to update the category lists.
>
> What I tend to do is mark items with the ARCHIVE tag and leave them in the
> file and then every few months, move archived data to archive files.  It
> can still get slow, but I don't do it often, so it isn't too much of a
> hassle.
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 08:23, Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thanks for the clarification.  are you saying that, for every archived
>> entry, it calculates teh category property, using the original org
>> file, in order to add a category property to just one archived entry?
>>
>> that would certainly slow down more and more, but it sends me back to
>> my question about whether append to file would work.
>> i.e. build the single entry in a temporary buffer then write that
>> region to a file on disk.
>>
>> On 8/10/21, Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> i should clarify.  bulk archiving slows down even with /nonexistent/
>> >> (have not tried empty) archives.  as part of normal and expected
>> >> operation, bulk creates the archive for the first entry, and then
>> >> subsequent entries are added.  those get slower and slower.
>> >
>> > That's what I suspected. I also see this and my suggestion helped
>> > archiving speed in my case.
>> >
>> >> i use (olpath category itags).  i will try (file time) when i can, if
>> >> that still applies.  my brain needs to be more operational.
>> >
>> > When you use category, every time you modify the original file (not the
>> > archive!), Org mode re-calculates *all* the categories in the original
>> > Org file. It happens for every single archived heading. If your
>> > original
>> > Org file is large, re-calculations make things extremely slow.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Ihor
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> The Kafka Pandemic
>>
>> Please learn what misopathy is.
>>
>> https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
>>
>>
>
> --
> regards,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Cross
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

Please learn what misopathy is.
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html