Categories
Mozilla

Test Build: Asynchronous Location Bar Searches

A few months ago I decided to try to use the asynchronous storage API that was added in Firefox 3.1 to help reduce the pain of disk IO on the main thread. Sadly, it became quite apparent that this was going to be too big of a change and need to much work to make it into 3.1, so I put off doing any more work on it. However, this week I started working on the patch again, updating it to work with the changes to the location bar and the storage back-end. Today I finally got it passing all of our existing tests (although, I know of at least one condition where it fails and is untested).

Now that it’s passing all tests, I feel comfortable posting a test build for folks to try and see if it helps or not. I should note that the current implementation is pretty dumb and doesn’t take many opportunities speed up results. Additionally, there are some other performance wins that are on my mind that become a lot easier to do with this newer implementation.

Admittedly, I haven’t benchmarked this yet, so I don’t know how it compares to the existing code. During causal use, however, it feels no slower than the existing implementation, but I don’t usually have issues with it. The goal here is to help out those who do have performance issues with the location bar. In fact, that’s exactly the feedback I’m looking to get. So, if you are feeling ambitious and willing to live on the wild side for a bit, I’d like you try this test build. After a little bit of use, let me know if you think the results are faster, slower, or about the same. Note: this is build off of mozilla-central, so it’s like a 3.2a1pre build.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated!

By Shawn Wilsher

The man behind the site.

9 replies on “Test Build: Asynchronous Location Bar Searches”

This sounds awesome. I try to keep as much history as possible, so searches can take a while under certain circumstances. Do you have a bug # where the patch is located? The try-server doesn’t seem to do both linux x86 and x86-64, and I’m the minority latter.

Comments are closed.