[Scilab-users] Curing scf() & figure() slowliness: a good target for Scilab 6.0.1

[Samuel Gougeon]

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   1.248    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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20210510/9100a1b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jcodlckpmnenjjdp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7754 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20210510/9100a1b4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jgdmiphdjmkceaap.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8579 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20210510/9100a1b4/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gmafflebljgnpgfe.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9621 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20210510/9100a1b4/attachment-0002.png>