Hi, > On 2 Apr 2019, at 11:05, Hans Hagen <j.ha...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > - It is hard to be conclusive about performance but for instance the luatex > manual processes a bit faster with lmtx as does the test suite. A gain in > performance on very demanding documents is also observed by Alan and Thomas. > Normally one can expect a similar performance. However, the memory footprint > could be a bit smaller.
For sure the ConTeXt now loads and initialises a lot faster. With that trivial issue.tex test file by Arthur I get these timings (after a few ‘warmup’ runs). MkIV (This is LuaTeX, Version 1.09.3 (TeX Live 2019/dev)): mkiv lua stats > stored bytecode data: 444 modules (0.445 sec), 93 tables (0.021 sec), 537 chunks (0.466 sec) ... mkiv lua stats > runtime: 0.888 seconds, 1 processed pages, 1 shipped pages, 1.126 pages/second system | total runtime: 1.391 seconds real 0m1.646s user 0m1.476s sys 0m0.115s LMTX: mkiv lua stats > stored bytecode data: 456 modules (0.243 sec), 93 tables (0.016 sec), 549 chunks (0.259 sec) ... mkiv lua stats > runtime: 0.559 seconds, 1 processed pages, 1 shipped pages, 1.789 pages/second system | total runtime: 0.655 seconds of 0.725 seconds real 0m0.731s user 0m0.601s sys 0m0.084s Impressive! Taco ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
