Why is the display time longer for one of these graphs than the other?

[Mark_L]

Display time for the "Traces[]" graph is much longer than for the "Analog Channels" graph.  

I am unable to find what is causing this difference.  

I am unable to find a property node that would show a setup difference.

Attached is the Performance and Memory Profile.

I am attaching my test VI.  The array size is set to 1M.  In the real code I may need to go up to 5M.

Why is display time different?

[mcduff]

Not sure of the difference you are seeing, except maybe use High Resolution Relative Seconds instead of the tick count for better accuracy.

Some things:

1. Turn smooth updates off.
2. Never graph 1-5 million data points. It wastes time and memory. Decimate the data first before graphing. For an example, see this link

[zou · Accepted solution]

If you have a lot of data to display, make sure to use the default graph settings.  Such as line style, line width, ..., Point style.

[Mark_L]

Both graphs have Smooth Updates checked.

Time difference is in seconds. 

• 0.017 seconds for Analog Channels graph
• 3.449 seconds for Traces[] graph

Tick count only shows the time it takes to load the info into the indicator (that is the wire).  The display time is what is different.  

Nothing wrong with graphing all these points if it takes only 17 ms.  (Should not LabVIEW take care of the decimating anyway for display?)

My basic question is why is one graph taking longer than the other to display when they seem like identical graphs?

[Mark_L]

Turning off the data point markers on the second plot reduced the display time.  

Now both graphs have a similar display time.