EFS vs Standard Studies

[shaeffer]

Does an EFS that does exactly the same as a standard study use any more computer resources than the standard study?

Why I ask is that I view multiple charts in multiple monitors, with each chart including a few studies. There are a few minor tweaks I'd like to add to the studies, using EFS's. But if running an EFS in some way requires a lot more computer horsepower that the near identical standard study, then running so many EFS's might bog down my computer.

I guess there could be two aspects to this: differences in loading time, and once loaded, differences in computer resources required to run.

Or maybe there are different 'classes' of EFS's that have different processing requirements (i.e. maybe EFS's that are linked to the Triggered Alert List are more processing intensive than EFS's that simply make chart color changes)?

I'd appreciate any thoughts/guidelines on how EFSs affect processing load. Or from other users that have loaded up with EFS's - did you notice any loading/speed differences?

Thanks in advance
shaeffer

[Doji3333]

My suggestion..

Using the BUILTIN studies as compared to the BASIC studies that are available from the right-click menu... There is probably not MUCH of a different in speed and processor cycles.

Now, when you add your "tweeks", there could be increased process requirements for anything you add. But if you keep it simple - you should not see too much of a slow down.

I find most of the time - even complex EFS files don't cause too much of a slow down - unless you are using lots of data on a 1 minute or tick chart.

B