Destroying a project cost more than loading it: on a 1000 folio project
--info reported its work done in 160 s but the process ran for 657 s, and
the difference was ~QETProject().
Timing each destructor puts 94 % of that teardown in
~QetGraphicsTableItem(), with the cost per table doubling as the project
grows (48 ms at 100 folios, 122 ms at 250). The database's own per-element
deletes are 1 % of it and linear; element and conductor teardown is linear.
A table destructor repairs the chain it belonged to, which relinks the
neighbouring tables, which assigns a model -- and one branch of
setPreviousTable() builds a fresh ProjectDBModel, whose copy constructor
calls setQuery(), which rebuilds the whole database. Destroying a 250 folio
project did that 12 times, for a project that is being thrown away.
So block the rebuild for the lifetime of the destructor, next to the
blockSignals(true) already there for the same reason. Nothing can observe
the result: the database is destroyed moments later as a member of the
project. Teardown drops about fivefold at every size measured -- 1.30 s to
0.26 s at 100 folios, 7.75 s to 1.73 s at 250, 19.92 s to 4.02 s at 400 --
and the number of full rebuilds in a run stops growing with project size.
Teardown is still superlinear, now dominated by
QetGraphicsTableItem::setUpColumnAndRowMinimumSize() measuring every cell of
the nomenclature each time a chain is relinked. That is left alone here.
--info stays byte identical on all 23 example projects, as do --export-bom,
--export-wires, --export-cables, --export-nets and --export-wiring.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01L6MRq2Ach1ogvnGcbuqNLr
ispyisail
73250bd746