The only way to really tell is to time them.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jacob Joaquin 
>Sent: Jun 4, 2008 11:57 AM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: [Csnd]  Performance differences between globals, zak, and chn.
>
>
>What are the performance differences between globals, zak, and chn?  For
>example:
>
>instr foo
>  chnset p4, "freq"
>endin
>
>instr bar
>  k1 chnget "freq"
>  a1 oscil 10000, k1, 1
>  out a1
>endin
>
>VS.
>
>instr foo2
>  gkFreq = p4
>endin
>
>instr bar2
>  a1 oscil 10000, gkFreq, 1
>  out a1
>endin
>
>VS.
>
>instr foo3
>  ziw p4, 1
>endin
>
>instr bar3
>  k1 zkr 1
>  a1 oscil 10000, k1, 1
>  out a1
>endin 
>
>
>My guess is that globals are probably less processor intensive than either
>zak or chn, and that zak is less intensive than chn with strings. If my
>guess is correct, I have no idea what the difference in overhead would be. 
>Though there is hardly a significant difference in the example, I can
>imagine this difference would add up with a dozen or more patches, assuming
>a difference exists.
>
>Best, 
>Jake 
>---- 
>The Csound Blog 
>http://www.thumbuki.com/csound/blog/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-differences-between-globals%2C-zak%2C-and-chn.-tp17650134p17650134.html
>Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

What methods for timing do you recommend?


Michael Gogins wrote:
> 
> The only way to really tell is to time them.
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-differences-between-globals%2C-zak%2C-and-chn.-tp17650134p17650874.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.