On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 16:08 -0500, Trevor Bača wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Graham Percival > <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> Since then, we've had > - skyline vertical placement (you don't need to manually > increase the > padding on text scripts!) > - better vertical placement of systems on a page (maybe not > particularly relevant to huge scores when you can only fit one > system > per page anyway) > > Both of those are expensive. > > > Ah, good point, on both counts. > > > The score in question contains no scripts. Hmm ... isn't there a way > to turn off skyline vertical placement? I very much doubt that this is the problem. If you compile your own lilypond, you can include profiling support with the --enable-profiling option to ./configure, which would tell you where the bottleneck is. > > > (As a postscript, I also have #(define page-breaking > ly:minimal-breaking) > > set in the score because I set all breaks and vertical > spacing by hand. I > > know that certain changes that Joe's made to dramatically > improve vertical > > spacing cane be time consumptive in some cases, so maybe > this is a > > precaution to ward against that. However, the setting > produces no obvious > > increase in performance, which makes me think that vertical > spacing has > > nothing to do with the performance difference I'm > experiencing.) > > > Hmm. 1) are you sure that minimal-breaking is the lowest-CPU > option? I believe it is the fastest, although I've never checked. > Isn't there a naive-breaking, or even a > non-automatic-breaking ? There isn't, but one could probably be written. For it to be much faster than minimal-breaking, it would need to avoid all of the height-estimation routines. That is, it would need several changes to the existing code, so it wouldn't quite be trivial. > If > you've manually set *all* breaks and pageBreaks, then > theoretically > that would save a **ton** of CPU resources. Probably. But it would be nice to have profiling output to be sure. > > > Actually, you're right: I'm not certain. I was assuming that minimal > would be the least CPU-intensive option, but I may be wrong. (I've > added Joe to the thread in the hopes that he might weigh in.) > > > > > > 2) are you certain that you've defined this in the right > place? I'm > not suggesting that *I* know the right place, but I'm not > certain if > you're supposed to add this to the top of your file, or inside > the > first \book{} block, or put it in every \score block, or what. > > > I've currently got the minimal page-breaking setting defined in the > top-level \paper-block in the file (which is also the only > \paper-block in the file). I'm 82.63% certain that that's the correct > place. The console output differs between minimal-breaking and optimal-breaking. Cheers, Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel