Repository navigation
Description
Function xqrs seems highly inconsistent on runtime from one ECG trace to another and I am not sure how to predict if a trace can be processed in minutes or many hours. The split is about 95% of traces are processed fast (minutes) and about 5% take hours. Some of quickly processed traces have more heartbeats or are across a longer clock time so it is not directly tied to trace length or trace clocktime duration. Processing seems to be either quick (minutes) or very slow (hours) - it is bimodal, not a continuous range. Trace durations I am working with are from under an hour to 24 hours. The longer traces are more likely to take hours with xqrs, but as stated I have even longer traces that take minutes. These are 1-channel traces. How do you suggest avoiding the slowdowns?
If I breakpoint the xqrs code, it seems the slowdown may be related to the _run_detection code (which is called by xqrs) sometimes doing backsearch. It would be helpful to know more about what backsearch is doing, when it is triggered, and how far back it rescans. Clearly if it rescans a large percentage of the earlier marked signal, then it will cause a quadratic slowdown as it gets further into a trace. I think this type of slowdown is what I am seeing when I breakpoint. How far back does it rescan and if far back, why? If far back, what would be the downside in me limiting the scope of the backsearch to a much shorter period? Is it possible that if the code makes bad decisions on the first few heartbeats used during learning that this can throw off the later backsearch, causing this hours-long execution?
Perhaps related, I see that the default wfdb_conf.t_inspect_period = 0.0 in the latest version was recently changed from a default wfdb_conf.t_inspect_period = 0.36. The value of 0.36 seems like it might be correlated to some traces taking much longer, but it is possible I am in error on this. I find the 0.36 value does a much better job of avoiding falsely marking t-waves as a qrs so it is highly desireable to keep using 0.36 rather than 0.0.
The documentation on wfdb_conf.t_inspect_period is very terse. It says "The period below which a potential QRS complex is inspected to see if it is a T-wave. Leave as 0 for no T-wave inspection." Is the 'period' a time window after the location of a qrs complex where the code avoids finding another qrs complex? Is the period 's units seconds? How does the default wfdb_conf.t_inspect_period affect the backtrace?
This set of issues may also be related to this issue: #180
I can arrange to get you ECG traces that run fast and slow on xqrs if that is helpful, but would prefer to not publicly post them. Thanks.
Activity
Skip already-rejected peaks in XQRS backsearch (#596)
TheNetherWatcher commentedon Nov 1, 2026
I think this was fixed by #596, which is on
main(not yet in a release).Your guess was right. When a backsearch found nothing, the next peak triggered another backsearch over the same range plus one more peak, so a long stretch with no QRS complexes (lead off, flat line, low-amplitude noise) was rescanned at every peak. That made the time quadratic in the length of the stretch, which would explain why only some records took hours. Backsearch now starts after the last peak an earlier backsearch already rejected, and the detected QRS locations are the same.
On the other questions:
t_inspect_periodis in seconds, measured from the previous detected QRS. A candidate peak that comes sooner than that after the previous QRS is checked to see whether it looks like a T-wave, by comparing its slope with the slope of the previous QRS. It doesn't affect backsearch time. With record 100 and a 40-minute stretch of noise inserted, detection takes under a second onmainwith eithert_inspect_period=0or0.36.If you can try
mainon one of your slow records, that would confirm it.