Inconsistent time taken by Pattern Match VIs

[Logic]

When the IMAQ Copy and the IMAQ Match Pattern 2 VI takes the same image as input and runs parallely the IMAQ Match Pattern 2 VI takes 5-6 sec (500 times more than the normal time) to find the matches. Attached VI simulates the same. Any valuable reason for this?

[Steffen Hoog]

I run your VI several times. But I was not able to reproduce it. After that I replaced the For loop by a while loop to run your code 5000 times. I did not get the time delay. You can find the results attached. I have installed LabVIEW 7.1 and Vision Development Module 7.1.

[Logic]

Yes. I am also surprised with your answer and tried my self again and again. I could not get that again. Then finally i got a point that i have opened lot of other VIs in my application during that time. Then i opened all that VIs again and tried, i am able to reproduce that. Then i have closed one by one VI finally i noticed that IMAQ Copy VI is taking time and it is called in other VIs i have opened. Finally i am not able to make it out why it is happening, but if sequence IMAQ Copy and Imaq Pattern Match it is not taking so much time. I have attached two other VIs. you just keep open the "Main.VI" and run the "Simulate ... .vi" as explained in that VI. Let me know whther you are able to get that delay and some answers or guesses.

By the way, i a
m using LV7.0, and Imaq Vision 7.0.

Thank you so much for your effort.

m senthil kumar

[Steffen Hoog]

You are right. If I opened your main.vi and run the other one parallel I got some interupts of 3-4 seconds. My next step was to open the copy function and set the execution to "reentrant execution" (File>>VI properties >> execution). I saved the new settings and never got those interrupts again. Please try it on your system, too.

[Logic]

Yes. Reentrant may also solve the problem. But we are not able to understand the relationship between each. What makes the difference for a VI just kept open, that to specific to that VI. For example, if you just kept open the sub VI alone this problem was not there.

Anyway some think related to memory Management going wrong. Thats all we can guess.
Thanks.