On Die, 2013-01-08 at 15:13 +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Die, 2013-01-08 at 12:14 +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > 3))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) > > When loading a patch in the Pd-extended release candidate, the memory > > footprint is approximately three times higher than loading the same > > patch with Pd 0.43.3 vanilla. For a patch that eats 200 MB of memory in > > Pd-vanilla, this means 600 MB memory usage in the current Pd-extended. > > > > The patch I used to measure the memory footprint does not use a lot of > > tables but contains many instances of abstractions and nested > > abstractions. > > > > My impression is that there wasn't such a huge difference with earlier > > builds of Pd-0.43-extended, though I don't have any data to confirm > > this. I'll check that when I found a version that does not exhibit the > > problems 1) and 2) and see whether the situation is different there. > > > > The difference in memory footprints seems consistent across operating > > systems, at least between Ubuntu 12.04.1 and Windows XP (both i386). > > It appears the difference is not specific to recent version of > Pd-extended. I tried a version from May 2012 and it also uses 3 times > more memory for the same patch than Pd-vanilla. > > It seems this isn't a release critical issue for most people. However, I > still wonder where this difference does come from.
The 3-fold difference seems specific to the patch I tested with [1]. I made a test patch containing many abstractions consisting of a few vanilla objects and there isn't any noticeable difference. [1] sonoplanes.pd from https://github.com/reduzent/sonoplanes Roman _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
