[tex-live] TeXLive 2005 is slower than TeXLive2003

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Sat Sep 9 02:36:34 CEST 2006

>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Hagen <pragma at wxs.nl> writes:

  > personally i have not noticed a speed difference; factors that
  > influence things are memory (pdftex may allocate more memory,
  > macro packages may load more patterns, map file handling, 'tex'
  > suffix appended lookup, etc); actually map file lookup has been
  > improved much the last few years; since pdftex uses some mem of
  > itself, it may be that it crosses the system mem boundary and
  > swapping starts taking place

I installed TL-2003 on my 64 bit AMD machine.

The result is quite interesting:

TeXLive-2003 needs only

real    0m0.044s
user    0m0.036s
sys     0m0.004s

while TeXLive-2005 needs

real    0m0.177s
user    0m0.068s
sys     0m0.012s

Well, there are no 64 bit executables in TL-2003.  Hence I installed
the 32 bit binaries provided by TL-2005.  They are a little bit slower
than the 64 bit binaries but much slower than TL-2003.

real    0m0.183s
user    0m0.084s
sys     0m0.012s

But there is a significant difference between TL-2003 and TL-2005:

This is e-TeXk, Version 3.141592-2.1 (Web2C 7.5.2)
This is pdfeTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.30.4-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.5)

It seems that the point is that LaTeX provided by TL-2003 is based on
Knuth's TeX while it is based on PdfTeX in TL-2005.

I also tested it on my old machine with TL2005.

What I'm wondering is that I can compile the file on my 8-year old
machine (350 MHz and 256 MB) in less than 0.7s while Jinsong
needs more than 6 seconds.  If I recall correctly he has twice as much


Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-4592165
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.

More information about the tex-live mailing list