2.12 - 162 pages; 2.14 - 147; 2.16 - 142; 2.17.26
- 158pp. 2.17 is noticeably looser, but I concluded I'd adjust some
of the spacing controls to fit more to a page.
-- Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:37
PM
Subject: Re: Lilypond benchmarking
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
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel
mailing
list address@hidden https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
|