Re: V6: ListPlot memory requeriments
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg78622] Re: [mg78567] V6: ListPlot memory requeriments
- From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 04:13:20 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <32716133.1183545128178.JavaMail.root@m35>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
Oh well. Fifteen years ago, we couldn't have gotten that plot in a week. ..
even with a super-computer. Today, it takes my 3-yr-old computer 3.281
seconds for both Timing calls combined.
WRI will speed up the graphics in their next release, I suspect.
But even if they don't... oh well!
Bobby
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:39:59 -0500, Nacho <ncc1701zzz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Group.
>
> I would like to express some concerns about the memory usage in V6
> when dealing with graphics.
>
> I have noticed from the first time I used V6 that it takes a lot of
> RAM to display the same graphics than in V5. Well, of course, not the
> same, V6 is much nicer, but with the same commands.
>
> For example, here is a extracted code from the Logistic Map notebook
> from MathWorld:
>
> LogisticMap = Compile[{{ mu, _Real}}, ({mu, #} &) /@
> Union[Drop[NestList[
> mu # (1 - #) &, .2, 300], 100]]];
>
> f = Table[LogisticMap[mu], {mu, 0, 4, .002}]; // Timing
>
> ListPlot[Flatten[f, 1],
> PlotStyle -> {Red, AbsolutePointSize[.001]}, Frame -> True,
> FrameLabel -> TraditionalForm /@ {r, x},
> PlotLabel ->
> TraditionalForm[
> Subscript[x, n] ==
> r Subscript[x, n - 1] (1 - Subscript[x, n - 1])]
> ] // Timing
>
>
> This plots the logistic map.
>
> After running it in V5.2, I get the draw in less than 0.5s, and memory
> consumption is low, (of course, starting with a fresh kernel):
>
> MemoryInUse[]
> Out[4]=
> 23 541 104
>
> MaxMemoryUsed[]
> Out[5]=
> 24 953 432
>
> In V6, instead, I get the plot in 5 seconds (10 times more) and with
> the following memory consumption:
>
> MemoryInUse[]
> 33 325 232
>
> MaxMemoryUsed[]
> 318 339 384
>
> Memory used is a little more than in V5, but maximum memory used is
> more than 12 times bigger! to get the same plot.
>
> I suppose that it means that if I want to plot 10 times more points,
> it will be possible in V5.2 but not with V6 (at least in my computer
> with "only" 1Gb of RAM).
>
> I don't know if I'm doing something wrong to plot the result. Is there
> is an alternative in V6 to ListPlot for lot of points? Maybe calling
> Point directly, but it sounds like a backward step to me...
>
> Other example... the "Neat Example" in the Help system for
> ContourPlot3D, how much memory does it need? I have to abort the
> process when more than 700Mb of RAM are taken and the computer starts
> to swap memory.
>
> I'm sorry for the complains, I'm just frustrated. The graphs look
> great, really, but I have found that in more than one occasion, I have
> to switch to V5.2 to show some results, because V5 plots are better
> than no plot at all.
>
> I can imagine the same problems happening in thousands of 2-3 years
> old computers in the labs of most universities. I think that it
> should really re-thought for V6.1.
>
> Thanks for listening to us, Wolfram people.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
--
DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com