Chris Vik

I performed a number of tests the other day to explore the efficiency of each method of sending data within the Max framework. One of the interesting results was the comparison between two methods of [pattr] binding.

https://cycling74.com/forums/comparison-of-value-transfer-methods-patch-supplied/

The image attached shows the exact same method of data transfer... the test pushes 100,000 increment values into a named [pattr] object, where a blank [pattr] is remotely "bound", receiving the values. The tests concludes when the [sel 100000] that's connected to this second blank [pattr] reaches the final value.

If you notice the times in the patcher, the [pattr gee] which is not directly bound to any UI object completes this test at 312ms.

The [pattr aych] object is connected/bound directly to a UI integer object and completes the test in only 231ms.

I'd love to know why a [pattr] object that is connected to a UI object runs faster than without - considering that in my other tests, putting a UI integer object in the chain normally slows the process down (~13ms in the case of my tests).

Here's the forum topic:
https://cycling74.com/forums/comparison-of-value-transfer-methods-patch-supplied/

If you notice the times in the patcher, the [pattr gee] which is not directly bound to any UI object completes this test at 312ms.
The [pattr aych] object is connected/bound directly to a UI integer object and completes the test in only 231ms.

I'd love to know why a [pattr] object that is connected to a UI object runs faster than without - considering that in my other tests, putting a UI integer object in the chain normally slows the process down (~13ms in the case of my tests).


[pattr] slower when not "bound" to object with middle inlet