[Bf-python] svg2obj script.

[Martin Poirier]

--- jmsoler at free.fr wrote:

> Selon Martin Poirier <theeth at yahoo.com>:
> 
> > You're sure it's that single if that causes the
> slow
> > down?
> >
> 
> Nothing else was changed.

Heh, when you mentionned a slow down, I though you
meant something more than a 1% slow down on a size 10
sample with more than 1% variation.

> > I did some benchmarks with different size strings
> and
> > the first version (with the split find) is always
> > faster.
> >
> > But even on large strings, the execution time
> > difference was between 3.60951423645e-06 and
> > 5.2826166153e-06 seconds.
> >
> > Martin
> 
> I did the tests in the script itself with a 800kos
> svg file
> exported  from Adobe Illustrator.
> 
> With Blender 2.43 CVS, win32 XP pro, python 2.5,
> imported objects remain in Blender'memory space.
> 
> 10 Times without this  modif :
>  elapsed time :  3.02794895687
>  elapsed time :  3.02382840209
>  elapsed time :  3.0483079298
>  elapsed time :  3.03878685169
>  elapsed time :  3.08494582747
>  elapsed time :  3.04972026395
>  elapsed time :  3.13402334144
>  elapsed time :  3.15297461674
>  elapsed time :  3.05711943378
>  elapsed time :  3.13330760271
> 
> Average on 10 times  = 3.07509
> Average on first 5 times   = 3.04474
> 
> 10 Time with this  modif :
>  elapsed time :  3.10750422266
>  elapsed time :  3.07682870892
>  elapsed time :  3.01555719385
>  elapsed time :  3.0640956465
>  elapsed time :  3.06022679437
>  elapsed time :  3.02146382774
>  elapsed time :  3.12042855888
>  elapsed time :  3.11457905378
>  elapsed time :  3.06329264794
>  elapsed time :  3.05221140016
> 
> Average on 10 times = 3.06961, faster but you have
> to load the same file 3
> times before to gain something .
> Average on 5 first times   = 3.06483, slower ...
> 
> New tests with official Blender 2.43, win32 XP pro,
> python 2.4,
> imported objects reamain in Blender's memory space.
> 
> 10 Times without this  modif :
>  elapsed time :  2.55757148982
>  elapsed time :  2.54529198096
>  elapsed time :  2.55689776832
>  elapsed time :  2.57920924172
>  elapsed time :  2.5708110137
>  elapsed time :  2.58500159065
>  elapsed time :  2.62151425544
>  elapsed time :  2.64284499019
>  elapsed time :  2.58333532894
>  elapsed time :  2.63685119103
> 
> Average = 2.5879
> 
> 10 Time with this  modif:
>  elapsed time :  2.54051702967
>  elapsed time :  2.52347233528
>  elapsed time :  2.5349952355
>  elapsed time :  2.5584814291
>  elapsed time :  2.57258579398
>  elapsed time :  2.576736104
>  elapsed time :  2.6136939851
>  elapsed time :  2.61544180995
>  elapsed time :  2.5731474679
>  elapsed time :  2.66417633218
> 
> Average = 2.5773

The difference is not very meaningful, it is less than
one standard deviation away in both cases. (I'm not
going to enter deeper into statistical theories, but
with a small sample like this, anything can happen on
both sides)

Frankly, on this one, I'd say do what you want, but I
really can't understand how you can figure that doing
the lookup twice is better than once, even if the
difference is minimal / non meaningful.

Martin


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/