Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> I‘ve just noticed what I consider a performance problem:
>
> Using new style classes to provide attribute-like access using
> __getattr__ is considerably slower than old style classes: Observe:
I can't reproduce those relative numbers using SVN trunk. Using your
setup code (copied and pasted directly from your message to my
interpreter session) I got the following numbers:
>>> timeit.Timer('d.foo', s).timeit()
1.2362558841705322
>>> timeit.Timer('d2.foo', s).timeit()
1.1634600162506104
>>> timeit.Timer('d.foo', s).timeit()
1.1840031147003174
>>> timeit.Timer('d2.foo', s).timeit()
1.1554200649261475
(a slight speed advantage to the new-style class for __getattr__)
>>> timeit.Timer('d.bar', s).timeit()
0.17601609230041504
>>> timeit.Timer('d2.bar', s).timeit()
0.18697309494018555
>>> timeit.Timer('d.bar', s).timeit()
0.1711127758026123
>>> timeit.Timer('d2.bar', s).timeit()
0.1827549934387207
(very slight speed advantage to the old-style class for the unbound method)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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