[XeTeX] efficiency of placing different graphics formats?

William Adams will.adams at frycomm.com
Mon Sep 29 19:27:11 CEST 2008

On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:07 PM, William Adams wrote:

> When I do the benchmarking, I'll try bitmapped .pdfs (batch conversion
> from PhotoShop) as well.

Okay, here're the results for two consecutive runs:

267.780u 11.425s 5:50.27 79.7%	0+0k 0+15io 0pf+0w
267.515u 11.324s 5:52.37 79.1%	0+0k 0+86io 0pf+0w
filesize: 159.7MB

3.804u 4.123s 1:26.34 9.1%	0+0k 0+82io 0pf+0w
3.481u 2.329s 0:32.98 17.5%	0+0k 0+82io 0pf+0w
filesize: 83.1MB

3.874u 4.047s 1:20.87 9.7%	0+0k 0+11io 0pf+0w
3.787u 3.897s 1:03.72 12.0%	0+0k 0+12io 0pf+0w
filesize: 157.7MB

(done using time xelatex filename.tex)

There're over 100 graphics for this title, averaging around 10MB each  
as .PNGs (about a dozen get pulled in for each run though), half that  
for .JPEGs, and _twice_ that for .PDFs --- probably I should try  
making .eps files and distilling to get .pdfs, instead of batch  
processing through PhotoShop.

So JPEGs seem to be the big winner time and file-size-wise (though the  
latter may be aiding the former --- I was working off a network drive  
and on the second run it looks like the while set of JPEG graphics  
were cached in memory for the second run)


William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications

More information about the XeTeX mailing list