http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14303
--- Comment #3 from Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com 2009-05-31 05:56:06 --- (In reply to comment #2)
Created an attachment (id=15044)
--> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=15044) [details]
Patch is obviously wrong: - LVN_ITEMCHANGING/LVN_ITEMCHANGED notifications ignored; - callback mask ignored.
Going further such optimization with storing only range index isn't possible with current design cause it requires item state synchronization with ranges before sorting and after it - for 10000 items it won't be so fast.
(In reply to comment #0)
I've created a patch that sets the range of selected items. This select all happens much more instantaneously.
This could be a result of omitted notifications.
(In reply to comment #0)
With tens of thousands of items, this takes a _long_time_.
Maybe it's time to switch LVS_OWNERDATA style on.
After that's a potential WONTFIX (or INVALID maybe) for me. I'd like to see any thoughts on that.