Slow LC 9 Performance - Test Stack, Video, QA Report

[Curry Kenworthy]

Me:

 > I took some care to make the math test a true math test.

P.S. - I was careful about binary optimization for the original Root 
Loops math test, but the alternate shift-click test I added later (big 
calculations) didn't have that.

Doing so makes hardly any difference for LC6, but it does help LC9 quite 
a bit. It brings the big calculations result on Windows down from 2x to 
1.5x slower on my computer. That helps to separate the maths from the 
loops. Very good point Jerry/Mark; whether it's due to Unicode or not, 
conversion on 9 may be slower!

But even with conversion happening inside a loop, the unoptimized big 
math was 2x slower whereas the main Root Loops test (always binary 
optimized) is 2.7x slower, as is an empty loop with i.

So the loop itself, or especially the "with i" portion of it, might be 
part of the problem. I had previously tested a loop with no i (repeat 
sQty) and it was only 1.3 times slower. Hmmmmm. That could leave the 
incrementing and the comparison to sQty. One of those could be a 
culprit, or collectively maybe all 3 play a part; 1.3 ^ 3 = 2.2.

Unfortunately I don't have any time to pursue more tests right now, plus 
I was determined at first to only provide the results and not speculate 
too much on causes. Breaking my rule here. :)

But I hope we can get some great engine performance going soon, one way 
or another. Run well-optimized scripts on a very fast engine and we'd be 
blazing along nicely!

Best wishes,

Curry Kenworthy

Custom Software Development
LiveCode Training and Consulting
http://livecodeconsulting.com/