"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
David made the comment that we'd no information on the performance of
the latest development release on large project, so I thought I'd do a
little benchmarking. This has been done on windows vista 64 bit.
I've used 4 benchmarking tests: a) \repeat unfold xx c''4; b) \repeat
unfold 500 { c''4 c' \f c''' g } (this gives the skylining code
something to do, which the simple one in a) doesn't); c) the Finale to
Act I of the Mikado, which I created as code about 3 years ago, and
runs to 496 bars and up to 30 voices and d) The full score for the
Mikado, about 150 pages but set as a number (about 20) of separate
\score blocks. The main problem I've got is laying the results out in
a text-only email, so I've attached them as a little image.
Summary: 2.12 was very slow and unreliable on large scores. 2.14,
2.16 and 2.17.26 are similar: it look like current devel is slower
where there's a lot of interleaving of notes and dynamics to be done,
which is probably to be expected with the more sophisticated skylining
code. I'd conclude there is no fundamental performance problem with
our current build.
The numbers for 2.17.26 are generally about 30% slower than 2.16.
That's quite more than the skyline code as such should be accountable
for. Definitely looks like we should bother with some profiling.
--
David Kastrup