Stefan Behnel schrieb am 22.08.2015 um 19:25: > Guido van Rossum schrieb am 22.08.2015 um 18:55: >> Regarding the training set, I agree that regrtest sounds to be better than >> pybench. If we make this an opt-in change, we can experiment with different >> training sets easily. (Also, I haven't seen the patch yet, but I presume >> it's easy to use a different training set? >> Experimentation should be encouraged.) > > A well chosen training set can have a notable impact on PGO compiled code > in general, and switching from pybench to regrtests should make such a > difference. However, since CPython's overall performance is mostly > determined by the interpreter loop, general object operations (getattr!) > and the basic builtin types, of which the regression test suite makes > plenty of use, it is rather unlikely that other training sets would provide > substantially better performance for Python code execution. Note that this doesn't mean that it's a good workload for the C code in the standard library (and I guess that's why Alecsandru initially excluded the hashlib tests). Improvements on that front might still be possible. But it's certainly a good workload for all the rest, i.e. for executing general Python code. Stefan
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