Re: [Scilab-users] Curing scf() & figure() slowliness: a good target for Scilab 6.0.1
Le 25/02/2017 à 18:05, Samuel Gougeon a écrit : 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 1.24818.5 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 This issue is fixed in Scilab 6.1.0, on Windows 10. Fortunately. Here are the current Scilab 6.1.0 performances (on another computer than in 2017): It is still ~5x slower than with Scilab 4.1.2 (on the same computer), but it no longer depends on the number or figures currently opened. Samuel ___ users mailing list users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Scilab-users] Curing scf() & figure() slowliness: a good target for Scilab 6.0.1
Le 27/02/2017 à 12:58, Clément David a écrit : Hi Samuel, This is clearly a regression : there probably some synchronization issue (CPUs are not busy at all), could you report a bug on it please ? Done here: http://bugzilla.scilab.org/15035 All regressions -- especially coming from Scilab 5.4.0 up to now, but even before -- would be excellent targets for the GSOC 2018. I have started making a list of them. I will put it on the Wiki. It is somewhat vain to add new features to Scilab if useful or even mandatory existing ones are slowly but surely getting eroded, sometimes in a blocking way. Samuel ___ users mailing list users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Scilab-users] Curing scf() & figure() slowliness: a good target for Scilab 6.0.1
Hi Samuel, This is clearly a regression : there probably some synchronization issue (CPUs are not busy at all), could you report a bug on it please ? -- Clément Le samedi 25 février 2017 à 18:05 +0100, Samuel Gougeon a écrit : > 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: > 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 > > 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: > 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 1.000.014 > 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 > users@lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ users mailing list users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
[Scilab-users] Curing scf() & figure() slowliness: a good target for Scilab 6.0.1
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 1.24818.5 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 users@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
