I'd be curious to see Prima in that comparison. I know David put some thought into the large data concepts.
Joel On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Craig DeForest <[email protected]>wrote: > I hope this isn't beating a dead horse - but I got interested in > performance, so I ran both of your tests, Karl - point-plotting and image > plotting - against PGPLOT. Results are plotted below. Gnuplot is about 2x > slower than PGPLOT for plotting points. It's about 6x slower for plotting > images in the large-image regime, and 30x or more slower at displaying them > - but see the caveat below. > > On my machine, neither PGPLOT nor Gnuplot meets the "Karl standard" for > speed. > > All of the elapsed times include time to construct the output repository > (either X11 window or postscript file). > > I used the postscript output in the imaging test, because stock PGPLOT > doesn't actually touch all the data -- it uses sampling, so displaying > images larger than the display window doesn't involve touching every pixel > -- at least by the actual display code. Sampling is useful for some > things, ghastly for others. The postscript output may be a "fairer" test, > since it requires both engines to touch every pixel. But I left the X11 in > because for some applications the PGPLOT choice is the correct one (e.g. > quick-and-dirty movies). > > It might be interesting to throw PLPlot and Prima into the mix too... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Perldl mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl > >
<<performance.png>>
_______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
