New test results were added at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SVG_benchmarks
This looks even better than my first attempt. Nonetheless, it is clear that batikd is not ready to use but needs to be worked on.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Hk knghk.kng@web.de wrote:
New test results were added at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SVG_benchmarks
This looks even better than my first attempt. Nonetheless, it is clear that batikd is not ready to use but needs to be worked on.
I'm not sure where the notion came up that median performance was a useful criteria for selecting a rendering engine.
I'd expect that the criteria would be something like this: 0. security comfort (i.e. ability to deny local file access, strength against overflow exploits) 1. worst case memory usage vs average 2. worst case cpu consumption vs average 3. Least surprising rendered output 4. average cpu consumption
Batik probably wins on 0, Inkscape wins on 3 (being bug compatible with something the user can operate at home is arguably superior to being correct), rsvg wins on 1,2,4 (and maybe daemonized batik is getting close on 4).
Sometimes the CPU comparisons can be a bit hard... a rendering engine which doesn't support SVG filters (i.e. old rsvg) will likely be faster, but it will be producing unexpected output.
2009/8/17 Hk kng hk.kng@web.de:
New test results were added at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/SVG_benchmarks This looks even better than my first attempt. Nonetheless, it is clear that batikd is not ready to use but needs to be worked on.
Nice one!
Has anyone set up Inkscape so it doesn't have to be set up/torn down for each image? (Is this even possible?)
- d.
David Gerard <dgerard <at> gmail.com> writes:
Has anyone set up Inkscape so it doesn't have to be set up/torn down for each image? (Is this even possible?)
- d.
The next version 0.47 will have something. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/259303
Hk kng
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org