Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:43 PM > > From: "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 3:28 PM >> >> Phil Holmes wrote Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00 PM >> >>> The performance of LilyPond 2.19.18 on Windows is _much_ better than >>> previous versions. Some examples: >>> >>> A 26 page multi-score piece I've been working on: >>> 2.19.16: 114s to compile >>> 2.19.18: 52s >> ... [etc] >> >> That's remarkable. I can see no change between 2.19.16 >> and 2.19.18 that might account for this enormous change. >> The only effect of this magnitude which I've seen in the >> past is to do with setting up the font library when LP >> is run for the first time. But that would be an increase. >> >> Any chance your 2.19.18 is using a different hard disk, >> an SSD maybe, which the others weren't? > > No. They're all installed on an SSD. It's CPU limited anyway. > > I thought 2.19.16 might be quicker because of the change to the compiler, > but, as you say, have no idea why .18 is so much quicker than .16. I'm > pretty certain it's a genuine difference: I only noticed because the score I > was working on suddenly appeared more quickly!
Well, I remain mystified, but I can confirm the speedup on my Windows Vista laptop with a 4-page score: With 2.19.16 this took 25.2 22.6 22.9 secs With 2.19.18 this took 12.6 12.5 11.8 secs It is amazing, but very welcome! In my career as a systems programmer, in the days when performance was critical, I never saw an improvement of this magnitude resulting from (presumably) a single change. Usually we were struggling to gain a percent or two. Were there any changes to GUB between .16 and .18? Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user