"Phil Holmes" <em...@philholmes.net> writes:
> 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.
The numbers for 2.17.26 are generally about 30% slower than 2.16.
That's quite more than the skyline code as such should be accountable
for. Definitely looks like we should bother with some profiling.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
