|
On 21/09/13 13:31, Phil Holmes wrote:
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.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Phil,
How many pages does the full score take comparatively - a lot of the
page breaking stuff was done between 2.12 and 2.16, I'm curious if
you flicked through it and noticed any horrendous spacing or big
gaps between staffs or at the end of sections.
Thanks for the insight.
James
|