Hi Glenn, What we did isn't very complex, a 2000-odd page document filled with Loret ipsum... That's about it, the font used was ArialUnicodeMS.ttf and was embedded in the PDF. The version was i18n.arabic@09c38b8b and the major blocking point was in TTFFile.java readGDEF(in) readGSUB(in) and readGPOS(in). Commenting these out reduced the performance impact from 150% to 110% as compared to trunk.
Mehdi On 19 July 2011 15:02, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "the layout tests don't cover fonts, > rendering". While it is true that those tests do not cover rendering, it > does include use of fonts. > Could you send me the "large latin only document" in FO form (preferably > compressed if large), so I may test it? > G. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Glenn, >> >> We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the >> code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts, >> rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We >> created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in >> time. >> >> Mehdi >> >> On 19 July 2011 14:36, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: >> > Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit >> > tests, I get the following: >> > TRUNK CMPLX DIFF% >> > junit-basic 4.87s 4.92s 1.01% >> > junit-layout-standard 36.34s 36.72s 1.04% >> > In the case of junit-layout-standard, there are 25 more tests run in the >> > Complex Script branch. >> > So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance based >> > on >> > this data. >> > I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for enabling >> > by >> > default. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Pascal Sancho <pascal.san...@takoma.fr> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Glenn, >> >> >> >> IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the >> >> performances. >> >> Can you give an approximative impact? >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit : >> >> > I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script >> >> > features >> >> > (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or >> >> > both) >> >> > command line option and config file element; the question I have is >> >> > whether to enable or disable by default? >> >> > >> >> > If enabled by default, those who don't use complex scripts or don't >> >> > want >> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will incur a >> >> > minor >> >> > performance penalty. >> >> > >> >> > If disabled by default, then those users who use complex scripts or >> >> > want >> >> > advanced typography features in non-complex scripts will need to do >> >> > something special to enable this support. >> >> > >> >> > What does the group think? I don't have a strong preference either >> >> > way. >> >> > >> >> > G. >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Pascal >> > >> > > >
