[OT] RE: counter++ versus

[Frank Leahy]

On Sunday, March 28, 2004, at 03:52  AM, 
use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com wrote:

> From: Geoff Canyon <gcanyon at inspiredlogic.com>
> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: counter++ versus
> To: How to use Revolution <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
> Message-ID: <FFA17DDB-8062-11D8-8085-003065683ECC at inspiredlogic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Can you give some examples of code you wrote that executes slower than
> you would expect?
>
> regards,
>
> Geoff Canyon
> gcanyon at inspiredlogic.com
>
> On Mar 25, 2004, at 8:09 AM, Kevin wrote:
>
>> If you ask me 'RR' is much slower than I would have expected a engine
>> of its maturity and evolution.
>>
>>


Yes.

1) --- copied from a recent email ---

Time to show 190 photos in a scrolling list -- under 3 seconds on my 
iBook.

Time to show 294 photos in a scrolling list -- about 8 seconds.

Time to show 1124 photos in a scrolling list -- about 60 seconds.  But 
only 728 fit in the scrolling list (32000 pixel limit).

Degradation? Yes.  Graceful degradation?  Well...maybe not.

I was sure that the bottleneck was reading the photos from disk, as I 
could hear the disk being hit a lot, so I commented out the "set the 
filename" line.  Result?  Essentially no speed difference.

So then I commented out the code that sets *any* information in each 
group (title, etc.), so all that's happening is the photo groups are 
being created and positioned.  Result?  The 1124 photo version dropped 
to 15 seconds.

Hmmmm.  As Wouter said it looks like there's some room for improvement.

2) Getting file info on a single file is too slow.  You have to get the 
detailed file info for the whole directory and then find the particular 
file you want.

3) more later...

-- Frank


-- end copy ---