Hello, I don't understand how you got the 70 times difference (how is average per 200 buttons computed? and why 200?) According to the data:
button count normal (MB) material (MB) ratio*: material / normal 100 24.2 130 5.37 300 27.7 343 12.38 500 30.9 555 17.96 *rounded values The trend doesn't look good though. Why would the material style memory usage increase nonlinearly? I'd expect roughly constant ratio regardless of the button count. -- Best Regards, Andrei ________________________________ From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Mitch Curtis <mitch.cur...@qt.io> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:09 AM To: nus1998 <nus1...@yeah.net>; interest@qt-project.org <interest@qt-project.org> Subject: Re: [Interest] Material controls memory usage Hi. > -----Original Message----- > From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of nus1998 > Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2021 3:11 AM > To: interest@qt-project.org > Subject: [Interest] Material controls memory usage > > Hi All, > > I made a simple comparison that it looks material controls cost 70 times > memory as normal quick controls, is it expected? It's expected that it's more memory-intensive than most styles, but 70 times sounds a bit excessive. Can you please report this at bugreports.qt.io? Cheers. > my OS is win10 x64, with Qt 5.15.2 mingw64, here are the results: > > button count > normal button memory usage(MB) > material button memory usage (MB) > 100 > > 24.2 > > 130 > > 300 > > 27.7 > > 343 > > 500 > > 30.9 > > 555 > > avg. per 200 buttons: > 3.35 > > 212.5 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
