2007/5/2, Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
With my working copy of lilypond (on a 1.6 GHz Opteron), I have this down to 3m22.321s. That's still about 3 times slower than 2.8 but it's progress. FWIW, I don't think 2.10 (and above) will ever be as fast as 2.8 when there are many scores -- the newer versions do a lot more work in the page-breaking stage and there is a limit to how much it can be optimised.
Personally, I'm not at all worried about a constant-factor increase in running time. The trouble, at least with 2.11.23, is that the running time scales very badly with the number of scores (or possibly more generally with the total length of the music). As I said, 26m5.898s user time for the problematic file (here), with 29 score blocks. With roughly half the score blocks commented out, I'm down to 2m44.806s user time for 14 score blocks. Halve again, and I'm at 0m47.255s for 7 score blocks. A single (the first) score block clocks in at 0m3.020s user time. Something tells me this is a bit worse than O(n). I also tried repeating all the score blocks for a total of 58 score blocks, but this box only has 2GB of RAM and became quite slow due to swapping. I'll try again overnight.
> The "convert to PDF" step failed, however. I can't reproduce this (although I'm running git head instead of 2.11.13).
I have no idea why it failed. The PS file looked OK in evince. -- Arvid _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
