Hello,

Opening a new empty figure (without drawing anything) is a so common elementary task and it has become so long that i have built a short benchmark about it from Scilab 4.1.2 to Scilab 6.0.
Detailed results are here-below. The main conclusions are the following:

1. with no pre-existing figure,*scf**() is **20 times slower in **5.5
   and 6.0 than in *its best performances in *5.3.0*. On my computer,
   it takes 0.062 s with 5.3.0 and 1.3 s now (5.5.2|6.0).
   Scilab 5.4.0, 5.4.1 and 5.5.0 have dramatically damaged performances.
   The loss is even 10x bigger with figure(): it is ~200 times slower
   with Scilab 5.5 & 6.0 than with Scilab 4.1.2

2. Since Scilab 5.5.0, the time taken to open a new figure increases
   linearly with the number of already opened figures. On my computer,
   opening the first one (after loading scf()) takes 1.8 s, and opening
   the 20th one takes almost 10 s. This is still the case with Scilab 6.0.

*Detailled results: *

1. Opening the first figure :
   Only 2 tests are reported with figure() instead of scf().

   t=0;  for  i=1:50,  tic();  scf();  t=t+toc();  xdel();  end;  t,  t/50
                     [s]              [s]      4.1.2 base  figure()
   6.0.0  :  62.39/50   1.248    18.5 2.32
   5.5.2  :  73.62/50   1.4723   21.8
   5.5.0  :  69.94/50   1.3988   20.8
   5.4.1  :  37.33/50   0.7466   11.1
   5.4.0  :  24.07/50   0.4814   7.14
   5.3.0  :  3.102/50   0.0620   0.92
   5.1.0  :  4.069/50   0.0814   1.21
   4.1.2  :  3.370/50   0.0674   1.00 0.014

2. Opening 20 figures :

   t=[];  for  i=1:20,  tic();  scf();  t(i)=toc();  end;  sum(t)/20

   6.0.0  :  5.30  [1.35  =>  9.51]
   5.5.2  :  5.68  [1.77  =>  9.92]
   5.5.0  :  5.66  [1.82  =>  9.85]  range from the #1 to #20
   5.4.1  :  1.18
   5.4.0  :  0.923
   5.3.0  :  0.110
5.1.0 : 4.1.2 : 0.0774
Samuel

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to