# TTFX for Julia 1.11 much faster than with Julia 1.10

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ttfx-for-julia-1-11-much-faster-than-with-julia-1-10/130022>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** question, modelingtoolkit, ttfx\
**Created:** [June 19, 2025, 10:12am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ttfx-for-julia-1-11-much-faster-than-with-julia-1-10/130022 "2025-06-19T10:12:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ufechner7](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ufechner7/32/51363_2.png) [@ufechner7](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ufechner7)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2025, 10:12am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ttfx-for-julia-1-11-much-faster-than-with-julia-1-10/130022/1 "2025-06-19T10:12:33Z")

</div>

We see that the initialization of an MTK problem, using Julia 1.11 is much faster than with Julia 1.10. For details, see: [System initialization on Julia 1.10 is slow · Issue #233 · ufechner7/KiteModels.jl · GitHub](https://github.com/ufechner7/KiteModels.jl/issues/233)

Julia 1.10:

```julia
[ Info: System initialized at:
Time elapsed: 26.04489362 s

```

Julia 1.11:

```julia
[ Info: System initialized at:
Time elapsed: 6.724497246 s

```

Is this to be expected, or do we have bug in the way we precompile?

If you want to reproduce our results, follow the instructions at [GitHub - ufechner7/KiteModels.jl: Kite and tether models for the simulation of kite power systems](https://github.com/ufechner7/KiteModels.jl?tab=readme-ov-file#advanced-installation)

and then run:

```julia
include("examples/ram_air_kite.jl")

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ChrisRackauckas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/chrisrackauckas/32/77_2.png) [@ChrisRackauckas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ChrisRackauckas)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2025, 12:57pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ttfx-for-julia-1-11-much-faster-than-with-julia-1-10/130022/2 "2025-06-19T12:57:04Z")

</div>

> [@ufechner7](#):
>
> Is this to be expected, or do we have bug in the way we precompile?

Somewhat expected. There are certain things around type checks that cache better now.