On 21/09/13 13:31, Phil Holmes wrote:
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.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Phil,
How many pages does the full score take comparatively - a lot of the
page breaking stuff was done between 2.12 and 2.16, I'm curious if you
flicked through it and noticed any horrendous spacing or big gaps
between staffs or at the end of sections.
Thanks for the insight.
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
