[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
From: |
Mike Solomon |
Subject: |
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:23:21 +0200 |
On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:18 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:47 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. In this case, the answer is to cache frequently accessed
>>> information instead of requesting it again and again.
>>>
>>> We don't want to give people a choice between different ways in which
>>> LilyPond will be bad. We just don't want LilyPond to be bad.
>>
>> In my initial patches, which involved caching everything, there was no
>> appreciable speed-up on Mac and Linux.
>
> Maybe caching in unsuitable form? Cached data should be in a form
> directly usable for processing (with some possible tradeoffs between
> memory impact and unpacking speed), not in the form that
> function/library/system calls will return it.
I had cached skylines, although it’s true that it is possible to cache results
to function calls (i.e. calls to Skyline::distance for the exact same two
skylines).
Or there may be a better way to cache the skylines. But LilyPond takes a
looottttt of time in Skyline distance calculations.
>
>> I did not test it on Windows, but I don’t remember Windows users
>> (Janek) reporting back problems).
>
> Well, sounds like hen-and-egg here: we need more serious users to give
> more definite feedback, so that we can make LilyPond more suitable for
> more serious users.
>
>> I would be interested to do rigorous testing on Windows. It is not
>> hard to do - it requires creating a Scheme hash linking glyph names to
>> skylines.
>>
>> I still advocate allowing users to specify a speed/beauty tradeoff,
>> which can be done in concert with optimization to LilyPond’s core.
>
> That makes only sense where there is an incurable reason for a large
> tradeoff. "in concert with optimization to LilyPond's core" is, in my
> experience, a buzzphrase. In particular the word "optimization" tends
> to be construed as "somewhat tune an unsuitable algorithm, making it
> inscrutable in the process".
>
> I know that this use of "optimization" is widespread, but I have a
> thorough dislike for it. Almost any task can be algorithmically cast
> into the n lg (n) category which, with modern processors, is usually
> doable without having to think about tradeoffs.
>
I agree that the main goal should be speeding up the algorithm while
maintaining, if not augmenting, its understandability.
Cheers,
MS
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, (continued)
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Francisco Vila, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?,
Mike Solomon <=
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Trevor Daniels, 2013/12/10