On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Gaskin wrote:
12:52:22 -0700
I'm wondering if it isn't script execution at all, but perhaps memory.
I can't think of any way your script could be affected by the mere
existence of other scripts, since your main handler is pretty well
self-contained (so "send" or other such things which might give RR's
scripts some chance to intercede).
I don't believe that the scripts RR's standalone maker insists on
adding to one's project are all that large, but perhaps in an
intensive environment such as your image processing script requires
the difference may be just enough to affect performance.
How much RAM is installed on your machine?
I'm grasping at straws here, but this is such an unexpected result
that as far as causes go it may be worth remaining open to
possibilities which may even seem unlikely.
--
Richard Gaskin
and on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 Chipp Walters wrote:
Richard,
Your guess about memory just might be a good one.
(snip)
My guess is there is a memory issue at play here, which is always
difficult to diagnose.
Wilhelm, your tests are great! Please if you haven't already, test in
standalones as well. Just create a standalone launcher app, which
auto-launches the stack in the same folder. One for Rev and one for MC
and see if the speed differences occur in standalones as well. Perhaps
you've already done this and I've missed it somewhere?
Good stuff. -Chipp
Rchard and Chipp, thanks for the responses.
I did test with standalones (see the first line of my previous post: "In
the meantime I did further tests and built standalones for MC 2.6.5,
2.73, 2.74 and Rev 2.6.1, 2.73, 2.74. I tested 3 more scripts and also
tested all scripts with a much larger image of 1600 X 1200."), which
however could be easily overlooked among the amount of information
provided.
I do not think memory could be an issue here. The computer I used for
testing has 1 GB RAM.
The Revolution IDE surely is more of a memory hog, but the measured
performance differences between MC and Rev remain about (almost exactly)
the same even when comparing the standalones built with the same engine.
Following my fresh insight that imagedata handling is the main issue
here, I changed the positions of lines "put the milliseconds...." to
*after* getting the imagedata and *before* setting the imagedata again
at the end of the script:
- old script:
"put the milliseconds into Start
put the imageData of image 1 into iData
put 0 into counter
repeat for each char C in idata
add 1 to counter
put chartonum(C) into tC
put 2* tC into tC
if tC > 255 then put 255 -tc into tC
put numtochar(tC) into char counter of idata
end repeat
set the imageData of image 1 to iData
put the milliseconds - Start into fld "test""
- new script (I am referring to this as "measured inside" in the
following text)
"put the imageData of image 1 into iData
put the milliseconds into Start
put 0 into counter
repeat for each char C in idata
add 1 to counter
put chartonum(C) into tC
put 2* tC into tC
if tC > 255 then put 255 -tc into tC
put numtochar(tC) into char counter of idata
end repeat
put the milliseconds - Start into fld "test"
set the imageData of image 1 to iData".
I tested these two scripts in versions 2.6.6 and 2.7.4 of Metacard and
the corresponding engine versions of Rev 2.6.1 and 2.7.4, both as stacks
and as standalones. The stacks were always launched from the same folder.
I again used a larger image of 1600 X 1200 which was reset each time
immediately after each run of a script.
Results (average numbers are given for several measurements in all
categories):
- MC 2.6.6: Measured inside is 300 milliseconds faster, both in the
stack and the standalone (9350 vs. 9050)
- Rev 2.6.1 (engine identical to MC 2.6.6)
Stack: measured inside is 3400 milliseconds faster (13200 vs. 9800)
Standalone: measured inside is 3500 milliseconds faster (12250 vs. 9050)
There is another difference here between standalone and stack in REV
2.6.1 indicating an additional interference from the IDE of about 1 second.
- MC 2.7.4
Stack: Measured inside is 300 milliseconds faster (9400 vs. 9100)
Standalone: Measured inside is also 300 milliseconds faster (9480 vs.
9180), but the standalone is slightly slower than the stack ??
- Rev 2.7.4
Stack: Measured inside is 3130 milliseconds faster (12860 vs. 9730)
Standalone: Measured inside is is 3200 milliseconds faster (12400 vs.
9200), and the standalone is somewhat faster than the stack.
As you can see when you compare the above data of MC 2.7.4 and Rev 2.7.4
there is an additional speed difference between the IDEs even when
"measured inside": Rev is here an extra 630 milliseconds slower, meaning
that this difference cannot be accounted for by imagedata handling, but
must be caused by other interfering scripts in the Rev IDE.
Overall conclusion: Rev is generally 3 seconds slower (33 %) when the
imagedata handling is included in the measurement. There is also an
additional interference from the Rev IDE.
Best regards ( see you again next Monday after a longer weekend),
Wilhelm Sanke
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
