RE: Why are compiled scripts slower than from Script Editor?
RE: Why are compiled scripts slower than from Script Editor?
- Subject: RE: Why are compiled scripts slower than from Script Editor?
- From: "Sprague, Graham" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:38:09 -0500
I think I may have some important data here.
The Script Editor uses about 20-27% of CPU when running my script.
The compiled application of that same script uses a maximum of about 3-4%
when running.
>
----------
>
From: Sprague, Graham
>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:07 PM
>
To: Sprague, Graham; AppleScript Users; 'email@hidden'; 'Andrew
>
Oliver'
>
Subject: RE: Why are compiled scripts slower than from Script Editor?
>
>
Here's my setup...
>
>
Mac OS X 10.2.4
>
Quark 4.11 (Classic)
>
FileMaker 6 (Native)
>
Script Editor 1.9
>
Dual 1.25Ghz G4 w/768MB RAM
>
>
>
----------
>
From: Andrew Oliver
>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:05 PM
>
To: Sprague, Graham; AppleScript Users; 'email@hidden'
>
Subject: Re: Why are compiled scripts slower than from Script
>
Editor?
>
>
Are you running Mac OS X or 9.x?
>
>
If 9.x (as implied by the reference to Peek-A-Boo) your script will
>
be
>
constrained the memory allocation.
>
>
When running in Script Editor, you have the memory block assigned to
>
SE to
>
play with (which almost every scripter would have increased from the
>
default).
>
>
When running as a compiled app, you'll have whatever memory
>
allocation is
>
applied to the app - it's been a long time since I've used 9.x but
>
384K
>
comes to mind.
>
>
Try upping the memory allocation for your script app and see if you
>
see the
>
same results.
>
>
Andrew
>
:)
>
>
On 3/19/03 11:23 AM, "Sprague, Graham" <email@hidden>
>
wrote:
>
>
> I am getting similar results with my compiled apps. This is
>
absolutely
>
> ridiculous there should be no precievable difference in
>
performance beyond
>
> the launching times. My script takes 4X longer as an app than as a
>
compiled
>
> script run from script editor. Common guys there's a bug here!
>
>
>
> In Script Editor Window
>
>
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:29:25 EST 2003 0.533333333333 minutes for this
>
session
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:29:25 EST 2003 0.533333333333 minutes per document
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:29:25 EST 2003 8.0 seconds per page
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:29:25 EST 2003 FlushXress Finished
>
>
>
>
>
> As application
>
>
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:32:41 EST 2003 2.166666666667 minutes for this
>
session
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:32:41 EST 2003 2.166666666667 minutes per document
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:32:41 EST 2003 32.5 seconds per page
>
> Wed Mar 19 13:32:41 EST 2003 FlushXress Finished
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ----------
>
>> From: Axel Luttgens
>
>> Reply To: email@hidden
>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2003 7:03 AM
>
>> To: AppleScript Users
>
>> Subject: Re: Why are compiled scripts slower than from Script
>
Editor?
>
>>
>
>> Patrick S. Page-McCaw wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> [snip]
>
>>>
>
>>> To summarize, running a simple repeat script from a stand-alone
>
double
>
>>> clickable application is slower (each repeat takes longer) and
>
more
>
>>> variable (the duration of the repeat varies) compared to running
>
the
>
>>> identical script from within SMILE or Script Editor. Changing
>
the
>
>>> priority of the stand-alone from Normal to High using Peek-a-boo
>
does
>
>>> not change this result.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Really guessing here...
>
>>
>
>> The problem must be inherent to the queuing mechanism; I guess
>
the
>
>> 'delayIt' command works the same way the 'delay' command does, by
>
queing
>
>> an event that should be triggered some time later.
>
>> That is, the delay may be as precise as possible, you still never
>
master
>
>> what other events get queued in the meantime, nor their priority.
>
>> If this is true, changing the app's priority can't help, since
>
this
>
>> happens outside of it.
>
>>
>
>> Could you check with something like this:
>
>>
>
>> set nextPulse to GetMilliSec + 500
>
>> repeat
>
>> repeat while GetMilliSec < nextPulse
>
>> end repeat
>
>> -- processing statements here
>
>> set nextPulse to nextPulse + 500
>
>> end repeat
>
>>
>
>> and see if you still observe such differences between the editor
>
and the
>
>> stand-alone contexts?
>
>> Of course, this will eat a lot of your computer's CPU...
>
>> But this should at least improve the precision of the pulses.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>> The question is why? It is very impressive that AppleScript can
>
do
>
>>> this at all, I just wish that I understood this behavior.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> This is a two-parts question: why longer, and why less precise?
>
>>
>
>> The precision part is partially treated above.
>
>>
>
>> I suppose the 'GetMilliSec' command is from some OSAX.
>
>> I just tried here (I am on Mac OS 10) with the standard
>
additions'
>
>> command 'ASCII number' call in a loop from within Script Editor
>
and from
>
>> within a stand-alone.
>
>> It seems that 'ASCII number' is about three times longer when
>
called
>
>> from the stand-alone.
>
>> Looks like as if the editor environment did some "pre loading" of
>
>> external commands - possibly what Emmanuel meant in his post.
>
>> (this makes me reminiscent of something, but very vaguely - has
>
someone
>
>> more precise records than mine?)
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> HTH,
>
>> Axel
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> applescript-users mailing list |
>
email@hidden
>
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>
>> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
>
> Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>
> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.