Hans Hagen wrote:
> Santy, Michael wrote:
>> Its entirely possible that I'm missing something, but I was merely
>> inquiring about running the same timing tests that you did with
>> mplib, but instead using the existing MKII and MKIV image inclusion
>> code.  How much of a speedup over the existing code does the mplib
>> integration buy us for this benchmark?
> well, processing 15K mp graphics either runtime or delayed would take
>  way much time (no fun timing)

IIRC, beginning of the week we had a speedup of 50% against oldfashioned
mkiv (mptopdf-in-lua) with a batched Metapost run, which is alread some 
25% faster than batched Metapost in mkii mode (mptopdf-in-tex). And that
was before we started optimizing, we are at least twice as fast now as
we were then.

And in the old system, batched metapost was a whole lot faster than
runtime Metapost.

Take a look at it this way: if you have a document stuffed full of
backgrounds and borders and decorations, you may have a dozen unique
decorations per page. On a 200-page book, the total runtime used by
the new MPlib-based graphics system is then still less than a second
(well, if you were using Hans' machine).

Best wishes,

If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net

Reply via email to