Re: interactive game demo for gnuplot

[sfeam (E. Merritt) <eam...@gm...>]

On Sunday, 25 August 2013, Juhász Péter wrote:
> For what it's worth, I did some informal testing on the performance of
> various versions with a synthetic test:
> 
> perl -le 'print "set term $TERM";for(1..5000){print "plot x,
> ".(sin($_/1000))."*x; $PAUSE"}' > fos; time $GNUPLOT fos
> 
> where $TERM was either wxt or x11, $PAUSE either "pause 0.005 or
> nothing, and $GNUPLOT an old 4.5 version from 2011, cvs from 2013-08-22,
> and current cvs.
> 
> Times are in seconds.
> 
>         wxt     wxt     x11(*)  x11
>         nopause pause   nopause pause
> 4.5     10.483  16.488  7.326   6.166
> cvs/23  9.595   16.645  3.597   6.410   
> cvs/25  12.387  19.387  9.969   8.665

I get quite different results using your script.
Loop variable set to 1000
no pause or "pause 0.005"
average of two timing runs

				4.4.4	4.6.3	cvs 25 Aug
				=====================
wxt nopause		 8.04	 8.00	 8.88
wxt pause 0.005	11.33	11.66	13.82

x11 nopause		 8.78	 8.47	 6.37	
x11 pause 0.005	 8.80	 8.50	 8.04

qt nopause		n/a  		 4.52	 4.39	
qt pause 0.005	n/a  		 6.11	 8.49

Note: same script with pause 0.050   (1/20 sec) takes essentially
59 seconds whatever the terminal type.
1000 / 20 = 50 seconds, so I think the timer is doing exactly
what it is asked for.

The only thing I find surprising or unexpected here is that
qt is faster than both wxt and x11. 
X11 with no pause is slightly faster than in earlier versions, 
but I think that is likely due to Dima Kogan's speed optimizations.
 
> So it looks that yesterday's modifications do incur some performance
> penalty, both with and without pauses.

I can try again tomorrow on a different machine, but so far
I'm not seeing that.

	Ethan