RetroSearch Browse

Wed Oct 21 19:55:26 CEST 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/093137.html

Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 12:42 -0500, John Arbash Meinel a écrit :
> 
> You can use time.clock() instead to get <15ms resolution. Changing all
> instances of 'time.time' to 'time.clock' gives me this result:
[snip]
> 
> --- Latency ---
> 
> Background CPU task: Pi calculation (Python)
> 
> CPU threads=0: 24727 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.)
> CPU threads=1: 27930 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.)
> CPU threads=2: 31029 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.)
> CPU threads=3: 34170 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.)
> CPU threads=4: 37292 ms. (std dev: 0 ms.)

Well apparently time.clock() has a per-process time reference, which
makes it unusable for this benchmark :-(
(the numbers above are obviously incorrect)

Regards

Antoine.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/093137.html below:

[Python-Dev] GIL behaviour under Windows