RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 11 21:03:23 EDT 2001 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/077681.html

Update on this patch:

1) With the patch, the performance loss on non-in-place built-in types is 
enough to offset the gain from built-in types that do support in-place ops. 
Roeland's bench test, run on my box, showed a smaller-than-expected gain 
for list concat/repeat, and a larger-than-expected loss for string 
concat/repeat, and about the expected (small) loss for numerics.

2) Even worse, pystone showed a average loss of 180 pystones/sec with the 
patch. That's on my box.

3) For small operations like [None] + [None] + [None], the patch is 
actually a little slower, despite its more efficient creation/destruction 
of objects.

4) The patch is posted anyway: patch ID 414391 on sourceforge. Use it 
against latest CVS.

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=414391&group_id=5470&atid=305470

Sigh. Oh well, I learned a little more about CPython. :)

--
robin900 at yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/077681.html below:

Binary arithmetic optimization (Was: Why notanassignmethod?)

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/077681.html below:

Binary arithmetic optimization (Was: Why notan__assign__method?)

Binary arithmetic optimization (Was: Why notanassignmethod?)