# The microtype mystery

60 messages
123
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 El 18/08/2010, a las 19:21, Herbert Schulz escribió: > It's clear that /usr/texbin is not on your PATH. What version of OS X are you using? Did you transfer everything from one machine to another? > > Assuming you are on Snow Leopard (actually I think this also is the way it works in Leopard too) take a look at parts (d) and (e) for the answer to QM.10 on the MacTeX FAQ, . I know it refers to MacTeX-2008 but this will work for any MacTeX on Snow Leopard. > > Since things seem to work properly under GUI apps /usr/texbin seems to be defined and working correctly. Thanks for pointing out that FAQ, Herb. Yes, I did use Migration Assistant to move everything to my new machine, which came with Snow Leopard. This was a 2008 TeXLive installation, and after some time I upgraded to 2009. And applying fix #d has solved the issue. Now I can make my microtype timing more precise. For a 133-page manuscript, without \included graphics at all: Without microtype: real 0m4.266s user 0m2.422s sys 0m0.058s With microtype (just uncommenting \usepackage{microtype}): real 3m39.757s user 3m37.741s sys 0m0.151s Which means increasing by a factor of 51.51. With a 27" iMac with 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 processor, 8Gb of RAM. It would be certainly nice to improve this! Even if one uses microtype only in the final production stage, adjusting the many small spacing issues that appear entails typesetting many many times! JMaF ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Josep Maria Font wrote: > El 18/08/2010, a las 19:21, Herbert Schulz escribió: > >> It's clear that /usr/texbin is not on your PATH. What version of OS X are you using? Did you transfer everything from one machine to another? >> >> Assuming you are on Snow Leopard (actually I think this also is the way it works in Leopard too) take a look at parts (d) and (e) for the answer to QM.10 on the MacTeX FAQ, . I know it refers to MacTeX-2008 but this will work for any MacTeX on Snow Leopard. >> >> Since things seem to work properly under GUI apps /usr/texbin seems to be defined and working correctly. > > Thanks for pointing out that FAQ, Herb. Yes, I did use Migration Assistant to move everything to my new machine, which came with Snow Leopard. This was a 2008 TeXLive installation, and after some time I upgraded to 2009. And applying fix #d has solved the issue. > > Now I can make my microtype timing more precise. For a 133-page manuscript, without \included graphics at all: > > Without microtype: > real 0m4.266s > user 0m2.422s > sys 0m0.058s > > With microtype (just uncommenting \usepackage{microtype}): > real 3m39.757s > user 3m37.741s > sys 0m0.151s > > Which means increasing by a factor of 51.51. With a 27" iMac with 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 processor, 8Gb of RAM. > > It would be certainly nice to improve this! Even if one uses microtype only in the final production stage, adjusting the many small spacing issues that appear entails typesetting many many times! > > > JMaF > Howdy, For completeness, what is the command line you are using? Are you simply commenting/un-commenting the \usepackage{microtype} line/ Good Luck, Herb Schulz (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by Richard Koch El 18/08/2010, a las 19:11, Richard Koch escribió: > You need to add > > /usr/texbin > > to the shell initialization script yourself if you don't use the default Apple shell. You should add it before > /opt/local/bin to avoid confusing TeX with a possible MacPorts version of TeX. This is covered > in a FAQ entry at www.tug.org/mactex. Thanks for caring, Richard. I said "my bash" and perhaps you thought I was using a non-standard shell; sorry for that, I was just meaning "the bash of my machine", which is completely standard. I already followed the instructions of that FAQ (the upgrading problem) and everything is fine again. JMaF ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by RS-2 Hi Robert, I created by pasting a math article of 811 pages. Microtyped it is 802 pages. Times: real 0m2.442s user 0m2.364s sys 0m0.074s microtyped: real 0m4.226s user 0m4.115s sys 0m0.088s Go figure. GG On 2010-08-17, at 7:06 PM, Robert wrote: > Hi George, > > this is still not enough information, I'm afraid. I've just tested a document using the packages you list with a 1000 pages of text, but this still does not yield the exponential time consumption you experience. So something else must be going wrong. Maybe you could send me (privately) your document if the contents aren't confidential? Or else, could you post the log file with microtype loaded with the verbose' option? > > Regards, > Robert > > PS. Shall we stay on the Mac OS X list? > > > On 15.08.10 23:11, George Gratzer wrote: >> My book is 606 pages long. It is a single file plus the .ind file and125 pdf illustrations. >> >> Here are the packages used: >> >> amsmath >> amsthm >> amsxtra >> \RequirePackage[mathscr]{eucal >> amssymb >> latexsym >> amscd >> graphicx >> color >> mdwlist >> chngcntr >> color >> booktabs >> \usepackage{url >> fixltx2e >> verbatim >> enumerate >> xspace >> >> Typeset time as reported by "time": >> >> real 0m2.595s >> user 0m2.527s >> sys 0m0.063s >> >> that is, 3 secs. pdf file is 4.4 MB. >> >> Now if I use the microtype package( the book  is now 3 pages shorter): >> >> real 0m35.443s >> user 0m35.155s >> sys 0m0.115s >> >> typesetting is over 35 secs. pdf file is 4.6 MB. >> >> My iMac has 8GB memory; the whole ms with illustrations is >> tiny in comparison: about 40 MB. >> >> Anything I could do to speed up this typesetting? >> >> GG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- >> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq>> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/>> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/>> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/>> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex>> > > ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- > TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:54 PM, George Gratzer wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I created by pasting a math article of 811 pages. Microtyped it is 802 pages. > > Times: > > real 0m2.442s > user 0m2.364s > sys 0m0.074s > > microtyped: > > real 0m4.226s > user 0m4.115s > sys 0m0.088s > > Go figure. > > GG > Howdy, To be complete, what command line did you use? Good Luck, Herb Schulz (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by George Gratzer-4 On 18.08.10 20:54, George Gratzer wrote: > Go figure. Once again, this is very difficult without a test document. And just in case it isn't clear: this does not happen for me, nor for everybody. So there must be some kind of bad interaction with other packages going on, which I can only debug with a real example. Regards, --   Robert ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by Herbert Schulz time latex filename GG On 2010-08-18, at 3:19 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:54 PM, George Gratzer wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> I created by pasting a math article of 811 pages. Microtyped it is 802 pages. >> >> Times: >> >> real 0m2.442s >> user 0m2.364s >> sys 0m0.074s >> >> microtyped: >> >> real 0m4.226s >> user 0m4.115s >> sys 0m0.088s >> >> Go figure. >> >> GG >> > > Howdy, > > To be complete, what command line did you use? > > Good Luck, > > Herb Schulz > (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) > > > > ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- > TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by RS-2 I emailed you the "article". GG On 2010-08-18, at 3:52 PM, Robert wrote: > On 18.08.10 20:54, George Gratzer wrote: >> Go figure. > > Once again, this is very difficult without a test document. And just in case it isn't clear: this does not happen for me, nor for everybody. So there must be some kind of bad interaction with other packages going on, which I can only debug with a real example. > > Regards, > -- > Robert > > ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- > TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 On 19.08.10 04:22, George Gratzer wrote: > I emailed you the "article". Thanks. I get similar results, i.e. the compilation time (almost) doubles when using microtype. Although this is a bit more than I would have expected (and probably only occurs with huge documents, where tex's main work consists in the actual typesetting as opposed to executing packages' macros), I guess it's more or less unavoidable. pdftex is slower since it has more paragraph-breaking options to consider, and the microtype package itself also takes up some time. However, this (0m2.442s vs. 0m4.226s) is far from the times you mentioned in your original post (0m2.595s vs. 0m35.443s), and even farther from Josep Maria's extreme times (0m4.266s vs. 3m39.757s). So, if the compilation time only more or less doubles, I don't think there's much I can do about it. If there really are cases where typesetting takes ten or even fifty times longer, then I am still in want of example documents (hint for Josep Maria... ;-). Regards, --   Robert ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by Herbert Schulz El 18/08/2010, a las 20:03, Herbert Schulz escribió: > For completeness, what is the command line you are using? Are you simply commenting/un-commenting the \usepackage{microtype} line/ Yes, just that ! This morning I have changed machine and file, and here are the results: On a MacMini with 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 1 GB RAM, and a standard 2009 MacTeX installation. A 16-page paper with very simple text and formulas using Computer Modern and no strange packages nor graphics: Without microtype: real 0m3.649s user 0m1.622s sys 0m0.072s With microtype: real 2m48.568s user 2m47.323s sys 0m0.175s Again, a very large increase factor! The preamble of the document is: \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage{fixltx2e} \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}                         \usepackage{amsmath,amsthm} \usepackage{bm}                 \usepackage{enumerate} \usepackage{mathtools} \usepackage{url} I will e-mail the files privately to Robert. Thanks for your interest to all. JMaF ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 Josep Maria Font wrote: [] > Again, a very large increase factor! The preamble of the document is: > > \documentclass[a4paper]{article} > \usepackage{fixltx2e} > \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}                         > \usepackage{amsmath,amsthm} > \usepackage{bm}                 > \usepackage{enumerate} > \usepackage{mathtools} > \usepackage{url} > > I will e-mail the files privately to Robert. Here is another data point, obtained by playing with your preamble.  From my own experiment, I would suspect the interaction of microtype with the latexsym or similar packages: I took some random article of mine (46 pages; if others want to repeat this experiment, the latex sources, two files, are publicly available here: ). Then I inserted after the \documentclass line \usepackage{microtype} and then \usepackage{latexsym}, or alternatively just the following two lines from latexsym.sty:    \DeclareSymbolFont{lasy}{U}{lasy}{m}{n}    \SetSymbolFont{lasy}{bold}{U}{lasy}{b}{n} These two lines do absolutely nothing visible, as far as I can tell. But here are the timings from   time pdflatex CoDaNi_2010_art1 on my MbookPro core2duo: Original file: user 0m1.835s With just the two lines from latexsym.sty: user 0m1.909s With \usepackage{microtype} alone: user 0m8.591s With \usepackage{microtype} plus the two lines from latexsym.sty: user 0m49.910s This is a factor of roughly 5 for microtype alone, and of 25 for microtype+latexsym. The extra time is spent in raw computing cpu time, no system calls or disk activity. -- Martin ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Martin Costabel wrote: > Josep Maria Font wrote: > [] >> Again, a very large increase factor! The preamble of the document is: >> \documentclass[a4paper]{article} >> \usepackage{fixltx2e} >> \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}                         \usepackage{amsmath,amsthm} >> \usepackage{bm}                 \usepackage{enumerate} >> \usepackage{mathtools} >> \usepackage{url} >> I will e-mail the files privately to Robert. > > Here is another data point, obtained by playing with your preamble. > > From my own experiment, I would suspect the interaction of microtype with the latexsym or similar packages: > > I took some random article of mine (46 pages; if others want to repeat this experiment, the latex sources, two files, are publicly available here: ). Then I inserted after the \documentclass line > > \usepackage{microtype} > > and then \usepackage{latexsym}, or alternatively just the following two lines from latexsym.sty: > >  \DeclareSymbolFont{lasy}{U}{lasy}{m}{n} >  \SetSymbolFont{lasy}{bold}{U}{lasy}{b}{n} > > These two lines do absolutely nothing visible, as far as I can tell. But here are the timings from > > time pdflatex CoDaNi_2010_art1 > > on my MbookPro core2duo: > > Original file: > user 0m1.835s > > With just the two lines from latexsym.sty: > user 0m1.909s > > With \usepackage{microtype} alone: > user 0m8.591s > > With \usepackage{microtype} plus the two lines from latexsym.sty: > user 0m49.910s > > This is a factor of roughly 5 for microtype alone, and of 25 for microtype+latexsym. The extra time is spent in raw computing cpu time, no system calls or disk activity. > > -- > Martin > Howdy, Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? Good Luck, Herb Schulz (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 I just woke up that my problem is solved! > Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? First, Herb you are wrong. My recollection is that latexsym defines about a dozen symbols that amsfonts does not. It seems, however, that I do not need any one of them. So I commented out \RequirePackage{latexsym} in the sty file and here are the results: without microtype: real 0m2.604s user 0m2.534s sys 0m0.067s with microtype: real 0m7.172s user 0m7.103s sys 0m0.062s PERFECT! I am really grateful for your help Martin and Herb. Ido not know how you came up with the idea that latexsym could be a factor. To me it was only a definition of a dozen commands... I will report soon what these times are like with the new iMac. GG On 2010-08-20, at 7:41 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote: > > On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Martin Costabel wrote: > >> Josep Maria Font wrote: >> [] >>> Again, a very large increase factor! The preamble of the document is: >>> \documentclass[a4paper]{article} >>> \usepackage{fixltx2e} >>> \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}                         \usepackage{amsmath,amsthm} >>> \usepackage{bm}                 \usepackage{enumerate} >>> \usepackage{mathtools} >>> \usepackage{url} >>> I will e-mail the files privately to Robert. >> >> Here is another data point, obtained by playing with your preamble. >> >> From my own experiment, I would suspect the interaction of microtype with the latexsym or similar packages: >> >> I took some random article of mine (46 pages; if others want to repeat this experiment, the latex sources, two files, are publicly available here: ). Then I inserted after the \documentclass line >> >> \usepackage{microtype} >> >> and then \usepackage{latexsym}, or alternatively just the following two lines from latexsym.sty: >> >> \DeclareSymbolFont{lasy}{U}{lasy}{m}{n} >> \SetSymbolFont{lasy}{bold}{U}{lasy}{b}{n} >> >> These two lines do absolutely nothing visible, as far as I can tell. But here are the timings from >> >> time pdflatex CoDaNi_2010_art1 >> >> on my MbookPro core2duo: >> >> Original file: >> user 0m1.835s >> >> With just the two lines from latexsym.sty: >> user 0m1.909s >> >> With \usepackage{microtype} alone: >> user 0m8.591s >> >> With \usepackage{microtype} plus the two lines from latexsym.sty: >> user 0m49.910s >> >> This is a factor of roughly 5 for microtype alone, and of 25 for microtype+latexsym. The extra time is spent in raw computing cpu time, no system calls or disk activity. >> >> -- >> Martin >> > > Howdy, > > Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? > > Good Luck, > > Herb Schulz > (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) > > > > ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- > TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 But the really interesting problem for us outsiders is why this happens... On Aug 20, 2010, at 17:02 , George Gratzer wrote: > I just woke up that my problem is solved! > >> Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? > > First, Herb you are wrong. My recollection is that latexsym defines about a dozen symbols > that amsfonts does not. It seems, however, that I do not need any one of them. So I commented out > > \RequirePackage{latexsym} > > in the sty file and here are the results: > > without microtype: > > real 0m2.604s > user 0m2.534s > sys 0m0.067s > > with microtype: > > real 0m7.172s > user 0m7.103s > sys 0m0.062s > > PERFECT! > > I am really grateful for your help Martin and Herb. Ido not know how you came up > with the idea that latexsym could be a factor. To me it was only a definition > of a dozen commands... > > I will report soon what these times are like with the new iMac. > > GG > > > > > > > > On 2010-08-20, at 7:41 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote: > >> >> On Aug 20, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Martin Costabel wrote: >> >>> Josep Maria Font wrote: >>> [] >>>> Again, a very large increase factor! The preamble of the document is: >>>> \documentclass[a4paper]{article} >>>> \usepackage{fixltx2e} >>>> \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}                         \usepackage{amsmath,amsthm} >>>> \usepackage{bm}                 \usepackage{enumerate} >>>> \usepackage{mathtools} >>>> \usepackage{url} >>>> I will e-mail the files privately to Robert. >>> >>> Here is another data point, obtained by playing with your preamble. >>> >>> From my own experiment, I would suspect the interaction of microtype with the latexsym or similar packages: >>> >>> I took some random article of mine (46 pages; if others want to repeat this experiment, the latex sources, two files, are publicly available here: ). Then I inserted after the \documentclass line >>> >>> \usepackage{microtype} >>> >>> and then \usepackage{latexsym}, or alternatively just the following two lines from latexsym.sty: >>> >>> \DeclareSymbolFont{lasy}{U}{lasy}{m}{n} >>> \SetSymbolFont{lasy}{bold}{U}{lasy}{b}{n} >>> >>> These two lines do absolutely nothing visible, as far as I can tell. But here are the timings from >>> >>> time pdflatex CoDaNi_2010_art1 >>> >>> on my MbookPro core2duo: >>> >>> Original file: >>> user 0m1.835s >>> >>> With just the two lines from latexsym.sty: >>> user 0m1.909s >>> >>> With \usepackage{microtype} alone: >>> user 0m8.591s >>> >>> With \usepackage{microtype} plus the two lines from latexsym.sty: >>> user 0m49.910s >>> >>> This is a factor of roughly 5 for microtype alone, and of 25 for microtype+latexsym. The extra time is spent in raw computing cpu time, no system calls or disk activity. >>> >>> -- >>> Martin >>> >> >> Howdy, >> >> Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? >> >> Good Luck, >> >> Herb Schulz >> (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) >> >> >> >> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- >> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq>> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/>> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/>> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/>> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex>> > > ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- > TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex> Martin Berggren ------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Computing Science, Umeå Universitet S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden. http://www.cs.umu.se/~martinb, [hidden email], Ph: +46-90-786 6307, +46-70-732 8111 (cell) ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by George Gratzer-4 On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:02 AM, George Gratzer wrote: > I just woke up that my problem is solved! > >> Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? > > First, Herb you are wrong. My recollection is that latexsym defines about a dozen symbols > that amsfonts does not. It seems, however, that I do not need any one of them. So I commented out > Howdy, I'm only going by what Kopka & Daly have in Guide to LaTeX'. Also, the only difference between amssymb and latexsym noted in The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List' is that a different glyph is used for \Diamond in the two packages; amsfonts (read by the amssymb package on loading) uses the same glyph and \lozenge. Good Luck, Herb Schulz (herbs at wideopenwest dot com) ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 El 20/08/2010, a las 17:26, Herbert Schulz escribió: > On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:02 AM, George Gratzer wrote: > >> I just woke up that my problem is solved! >> >>> Interestingly, the amssymb package---which loads the amsfonts package---appears to have all the symbols that latexsym contains so there is no need for the duplication and the speed difference is obvious. Am I wrong here? >> >> First, Herb you are wrong. My recollection is that latexsym defines about a dozen symbols >> that amsfonts does not. It seems, however, that I do not need any one of them. So I commented out > > I'm only going by what Kopka & Daly have in Guide to LaTeX'. Also, the only difference between amssymb and latexsym noted in The Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List' is that a different glyph is used for \Diamond in the two packages; amsfonts (read by the amssymb package on loading) uses the same glyph and \lozenge. This is precisely *my* reason to load latexsym (*after* amssymb): I want a real Diamond and not a lozenge; they *are* different things! I have always considered this a *bug* in amssymb! \Box and \Diamond are two extremely common symbols in modal logic... (btw, I redefine \Box to \square which, although slightly bigger, gets aligned with the baseline...). Now, Martin, thank you very much for having discovered this issue. Here are my timings with the iMac, for the 16-page paper: Without microtype (but with latexsym): real 0m1.035s user 0m1.002s sys 0m0.026s With microtype and NO latexsym: real 0m5.538s user 0m5.504s sys 0m0.029s With microtype AND latexsym: real 2m16.795s user 2m16.659s sys 0m0.160s I would say here the difference, a factor of 4, is more or less to be expected. However, for the 133-page paper: Without microtype (but with latexsym): real 0m4.266s user 0m2.422s sys 0m0.058s With microtype but NO latexsym: real 1m30.156s user 1m28.743s sys 0m0.069s With microtype AND latexsym: real 3m39.757s user 3m37.741s sys 0m0.151s Here the difference between first and second runs is around 22 times, this seems still too much, doesn't it ? For other interested people, the used packages in this case are (many intermediate lines deleted): \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage{fixltx2e} \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}             \usepackage[english]{babel}               \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amssymb}   \usepackage{bm}                           \usepackage{enumerate} \usepackage{verbatim}                     \usepackage{mathtools} \usepackage{url} \usepackage[pdftex,bookmarks,bookmarksnumbered,linktocpage,          colorlinks,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,pagebackref]{hyperref} \usepackage{microtype}                 \usepackage[slantedGreek]{mathpazo}       \usepackage[scaled]{helvet}               \usepackage{courier}                     \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}   \usepackage{textcomp}                     \usepackage[myheadings]{fullpage} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage[amsmath,thmmarks]{ntheorem} Another package I suspect is {bm}, which I think constructs its symbols on the fly, unless one uses \bmdefine; I use it in many cases, but perhaps there remain several isolated \bm commands here and there... Anyway, now the figures are closer to accceptable, especially if I \include single chapters. For me, it remains to find a workable \Diamond definition... Best, JMaF   ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: The microtype mystery

 In reply to this post by Martin Costabel Am 20.08.2010 um 11:56 schrieb Martin Costabel: > \usepackage{microtype} > > and then \usepackage{latexsym} On a G4 with Leopard (10.5.8) the first package slows down compilation   with pdflatex by a factor of 5-6. Adding the second package has   another braking effect of once more quite the same factor, so that   both together slow down compilation by a factor of around 30. The   microtype option activate={true,nocompatibility} has only a minor   influence, some percent, verbose=true similarly. Is someone going to discuss these findings with Frank Mittelbach   (latexsym) and Robert Schlicht (microtype)? -- Greetings    Pete Competition is the great eroder of profits. ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting ----------- TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faqList Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex