Does there exist any big-picture comparisons of the provided backends? For example, it would be nice to know what features each backend has or lacks. It would also be nice to which backends were generally faster…and which were recommended (WX or WXAgg).
There is some detail along these lines at
http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/faq/installing_faq.html#what-is-a-backend
but not the feature-by-feature comparison you suggest. But for WX vs
WXAgg, definitely WXAgg.
JDH
···
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Brian Lewis<brian.lewis17@...287...> wrote:
Does there exist any big-picture comparisons of the provided backends? For
example, it would be nice to know what features each backend has or lacks.
It would also be nice to which backends were generally faster...and which
were recommended (WX or WXAgg).
It would be really nice to have some info regarding "speed".
I don't know if one has to distinguish let's say the time it take to
draw a line with 100k points and the "general" felling of interactive
responsiveness !?
(E.g. I thought that wx was much faster than wxAgg ... just uglier )
···
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:23 AM, John Hunter<jdh2358@...287...> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Brian Lewis<brian.lewis17@...287...> wrote:
Does there exist any big-picture comparisons of the provided backends? For
example, it would be nice to know what features each backend has or lacks.
It would also be nice to which backends were generally faster...and which
were recommended (WX or WXAgg).There is some detail along these lines at
http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/faq/installing_faq.html#what-is-a-backend
but not the feature-by-feature comparison you suggest. But for WX vs
WXAgg, definitely WXAgg.
-
Sebastian Haase
Let me give some results of experience regarding these issues....
On the same dataset of 600 *7500 points, with the simple plot function,
(from the example, embedding in wxagg)
WxAgg was much faster than Wx... on a linux machine, while the WxAgg drawing
appeared close to a second or 2 after launch..., the Wx drawing was
displayed after 20 seconds. Same on Windows...
Same pattern for GTK vs GTKAgg, though less dramatic...
In a small app I wrote, containing 5 plotting windows (each containing
around 500 datapoints)
on linux, GTK take 1.2 - 1.3 sec to update the plots...GTKAgg took 0.7 - 0.8
sec...
on windows, the difference is even larger, GTK is in average 3 times slower
than GtKAgg...
As for direct comparisons between TkAgg, GTKAgg, WxAgg... it's a bit tricky
to time this stuff properly, so it's only my feelings that said that there
was no extraordinary performance difference between the different backends
(on the same datasets 600*7500 points). They pretty much felt the same, only
thing is TkAgg having drawing problems when busy and the window being
manipulated...
jimmy
There is some detail along these lines at
http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/faq/installing_faq.html#what-is-a-backend
but not the feature-by-feature comparison you suggest. But for WX vs
WXAgg, definitely WXAgg.
It would be really nice to have some info regarding "speed".
I don't know if one has to distinguish let's say the time it take to
draw a line with 100k points and the "general" felling of interactive
responsiveness !?
(E.g. I thought that wx was much faster than wxAgg ... just uglier )
···
-
Sebastian Haase
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-users mailing list
Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net
matplotlib-users List Signup and Options
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Backend-Comparison-tp24444974p24460335.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.