[Tikzdevice-bugs] Peformance

Gabor Grothendieck ggrothendieck at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 00:03:15 CET 2009 

I commented out the source statement but am still getting an error on this.
Here is the output and test.log is attached.

C:\tmp2\tikzDevice\inst\tests>findstr source testRTikZDevice.R
# source('testXeLaTeX.R')

C:\tmp2\tikzDevice\inst\tests>Rscript testRTikZDevice.R --output=output >
test.l
og
Loading required package: filehash
Loading required package: methods
filehash: Simple key-value database (2.0-1 2008-12-19)
tikzDevice: A Device for R Graphics Output in PGF/TikZ Format (v0.4.8)
Checking for a LaTeX compiler...


A working LaTeX compiler was found in:
        The PATH using the command latex

Global option tikzLatex set to:
        C:\PROGRA~1\MIKTEX~1.7\miktex\bin\latex.exe

MiKTeX-pdfTeX 2.7.2808 (1.40.4) (MiKTeX 2.7)
Copyright (C) 1982 D. E. Knuth, (C) 1996-2006 Han The Thanh
TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.


Error in getMetricsFromLatex(TeXMetrics) :
  ******** There was a problem calculating string metrics,
  ******** likely there was a problem with your custom packages.
  ******** See the LaTeX log file above for details.
Calls: system.time ... localTitle -> title -> <Anonymous> ->
getMetricsFromLatex

Execution halted


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Cameron Bracken
<cameron.bracken at gmail.com>wrote:

> That problem is from the XeLaTeX test, which has been segfaulting for
> a while, I don't know why. Apologies for the lack of instructions.
> The rest of the tests should work if you comment out the line
>
> source('testXeLaTeX.R')
>
> near the top of testRTikZDevice.R. Then you can either run the script
> run-tests.sh (which builds and installs the package) or do what you
> did before (it is better to redirect the output to another directory)
>
> mkdir output
> Rscript testRTikZDevice.R --output-prefix=output
>
> If you want to investigate the speedup from global string width
> caching put a line like
>
> options(tikzMetricsDictionary = "/Users/cameron/.tikzMetricsDictionary")
>
> In your .Rprofile file. The first run will be slow then subsequent
> runs will be much faster. For example on my system without using
> global string width caching:
>
>  Running Test 01 ... Done, took  4.455 seconds.
> Compiling Test 01 ... Done, took  0.423 seconds.
>  Running Test 02 ... Done, took  1.145 seconds.
> Compiling Test 02 ... Done, took  0.419 seconds.
>  Running Test 03 ... Done, took  6.042 seconds.
> Compiling Test 03 ... Done, took  0.542 seconds.
>  Running Test 04 ... Done, took  6.719 seconds.
> Compiling Test 04 ... Done, took  0.586 seconds.
>  Running Test 05 ... Done, took  11.283 seconds.
> Compiling Test 05 ... Done, took  0.676 seconds.
>  Running Test 06 ... Done, took  0.391 seconds.
> Compiling Test 06 ... Done, took  0.449 seconds.
>  Running Test 07 ... Done, took  0.365 seconds.
> Compiling Test 07 ... Done, took  0.423 seconds.
>  Running Test 08 ... Done, took  0.355 seconds.
> Compiling Test 08 ... Done, took  0.405 seconds.
>  Running Test 09 ... Done, took  0.394 seconds.
> Compiling Test 09 ... Done, took  0.399 seconds.
>  Running Test 10 ... Done, took  0.364 seconds.
> Compiling Test 10 ... Done, took  0.411 seconds.
>  Running Test 11 ... Done, took  0.364 seconds.
> Compiling Test 11 ... Done, took  0.422 seconds.
>  Running Test 12 ... Done, took  0.376 seconds.
> Compiling Test 12 ... Done, took  0.401 seconds.
>  Running Test 13 ... Done, took  0.376 seconds.
> Compiling Test 13 ... Done, took  0.568 seconds.
>  Running Test 14 ... Done, took  0.381 seconds.
> Compiling Test 14 ... Done, took  1.995 seconds.
>  Running Test 15 ... Done, took  23.414 seconds.
> Compiling Test 15 ... Done, took  3.241 seconds.
>  Running Test 16 ... Done, took  27.007 seconds.
> Compiling Test 16 ... Done, took  0.779 seconds.
>  Running Test 17 ... Done, took  2.648 seconds.
> Compiling Test 17 ... Done, took  0.415 seconds.
>  Running Test 18 ... Done, took  2.183 seconds.
> Compiling Test 18 ... Done, took  3.592 seconds.
>  Running Test 19 ... Done, took  17.97 seconds.
> Compiling Test 19 ... Done, took  2.409 seconds.
>
> and with caching
>
>  Running Test 01 ... Done, took  0.085 seconds.
> Compiling Test 01 ... Done, took  0.428 seconds.
>  Running Test 02 ... Done, took  0.031 seconds.
> Compiling Test 02 ... Done, took  0.439 seconds.
>  Running Test 03 ... Done, took  0.198 seconds.
> Compiling Test 03 ... Done, took  0.529 seconds.
>  Running Test 04 ... Done, took  0.254 seconds.
> Compiling Test 04 ... Done, took  0.556 seconds.
>  Running Test 05 ... Done, took  0.353 seconds.
> Compiling Test 05 ... Done, took  0.66 seconds.
>  Running Test 06 ... Done, took  0.021 seconds.
> Compiling Test 06 ... Done, took  0.45 seconds.
>  Running Test 07 ... Done, took  0.013 seconds.
> Compiling Test 07 ... Done, took  0.426 seconds.
>  Running Test 08 ... Done, took  0.014 seconds.
> Compiling Test 08 ... Done, took  0.393 seconds.
>  Running Test 09 ... Done, took  0.012 seconds.
> Compiling Test 09 ... Done, took  0.403 seconds.
>  Running Test 10 ... Done, took  0.028 seconds.
> Compiling Test 10 ... Done, took  0.463 seconds.
>  Running Test 11 ... Done, took  0.015 seconds.
> Compiling Test 11 ... Done, took  0.415 seconds.
>  Running Test 12 ... Done, took  0.021 seconds.
> Compiling Test 12 ... Done, took  0.408 seconds.
>  Running Test 13 ... Done, took  0.014 seconds.
> Compiling Test 13 ... Done, took  0.544 seconds.
>  Running Test 14 ... Done, took  0.022 seconds.
> Compiling Test 14 ... Done, took  1.86 seconds.
>  Running Test 15 ... Done, took  1.484 seconds.
> Compiling Test 15 ... Done, took  3.33 seconds.
>  Running Test 16 ... Done, took  2.988 seconds.
> Compiling Test 16 ... Done, took  0.779 seconds.
>  Running Test 17 ... Done, took  0.111 seconds.
> Compiling Test 17 ... Done, took  0.437 seconds.
>  Running Test 18 ... Done, took  0.096 seconds.
> Compiling Test 18 ... Done, took  3.585 seconds.
>  Running Test 19 ... Done, took  11.742 seconds.
> Compiling Test 19 ... Done, took  2.293 seconds.
>
> The last thing you can do if you really want to get into it is turn on
> the debugging switch in tikzDevice.c by changing the line
>
> #define DEBUG FALSE
>
> near the top of the file to
>
> #define DEBUG TRUE
>
> Then recompiling and installing the package. After this running the
> test will show the number of times string width was calculated or
> looked up which will give you some idea of where the speedup is coming
> from.
>
> -Cameron
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Gabor Grothendieck
> <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks.  When I try to run the test it fails.  This is the stderr output
> is shown below and test.log is attached.  I am on Windows Vista and am
> running R 2.10.0.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > C:\tmp2\tikzDevice\inst\tests>Rscript testRTikZDevice.R --output=output >
> test.l
> > og
> > Loading required package: filehash
> > Loading required package: methods
> > filehash: Simple key-value database (2.0-1 2008-12-19)
> > tikzDevice: A Device for R Graphics Output in PGF/TikZ Format (v0.4.8)
> > Checking for a LaTeX compiler...
> >
> >
> > A working LaTeX compiler was found in:
> >         The PATH using the command latex
> >
> > Global option tikzLatex set to:
> >         C:\PROGRA~1\MIKTEX~1.7\miktex\bin\latex.exe
> >
> > MiKTeX-pdfTeX 2.7.2808 (1.40.4) (MiKTeX 2.7)
> > Copyright (C) 1982 D. E. Knuth, (C) 1996-2006 Han The Thanh
> > TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.
> >
> >
> > Error in getMetricsFromLatex(TeXMetrics) :
> >   ******** There was a problem calculating string metrics,
> >   ******** likely there was a problem with your custom packages.
> >   ******** See the LaTeX log file above for details.
> > Calls: source ... Axis.default -> axis -> <Anonymous> ->
> getMetricsFromLatex
> > Execution halted
> >
> > ---
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Cameron Bracken <
> cameron.bracken at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not quite sure what you mean by relative speed, but yes there is a test
> suite that times some output.  The suite is in the inst/tests directory of
> the source code. A vast majority of the time is taken by calculating string
> widths.  The performance gain from caching metrics calculations is very
> noticable, somtimes up to 90% when lots of strings are involved. Does this
> answer your question?
> >>
> >> -Cameron
> >>
> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Are there any performance benchmarks for tikzdevice?  Is the relative
> speed noticeable?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Tikzdevice-bugs mailing list
> >>> Tikzdevice-bugs at lists.r-forge.r-project.org
> >>>
> https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tikzdevice-bugs
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/tikzdevice-bugs/attachments/20091204/c4db4d4e/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test.log
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 23811 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/pipermail/tikzdevice-bugs/attachments/20091204/c4db4d4e/attachment-0001.obj

More information about the Tikzdevice-bugs mailing list