Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:
> > python/sf/587993
> >
> > Looks like Michael Hudson did an *outstanding* and very thorough job
> > on this. Does anybody see a reason why I shouldn't let him check this
> > in?
>
> OK, Michael's checked it in, after some comments from Martin. Woo
> hoo!
Hurrah!
> But here's some sad news. I only see a speed increase of 0.5%! I
> believe that when we first looked at this patch the speedup was about
> 5%... Worse, Tim claims that on his Windows box it's actually 5%
> slower. What happened?
Beats me. I still see a healthy speed up:
Before:
$ ./python ../Lib/test/pystone.py
Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 3.99
This machine benchmarks at 12531.3 pystones/second
After:
$ ./python ../Lib/test/pystone.py
Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 3.65
This machine benchmarks at 13698.6 pystones/second
(which is nosing on for 10% faster, actually).
You're not testing a debug vs a release build or anything like that
are you?
Cheers,
M.
--
That's why the smartest companies use Common Lisp, but lie about it
so all their competitors think Lisp is slow and C++ is fast. (This
rumor has, however, gotten a little out of hand. :)
-- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4