"A.M. Kuchling" wrote:
>
> Python 1.6a2 is around 10% slower than 1.5 on pystone.
> Any idea why?
I submitted a comparison with Stackless Python.
Now I actually applied the Stackless Python patches
to the current CVS version.
My version does again show up as faster than standard Python,
with the same relative measures, but I too have this effect:
Stackless 1.5.2+ is 10 percent faster than Stackless 1.6a2.
Claim:
This is not related to ceval.c .
Something else must have introduced a significant speed loss.
Stackless Python, upon the pre-unicode tag version of CVS:
D:\python\spc>python ../lib/test/pystone.py
Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 1.80724
This machine benchmarks at 5533.29 pystones/second
Stackless Python, upon the recent version of CVS:
D:\python\spc\Python-cvs\PCbuild>python ../lib/test/pystone.py
Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 1.94941
This machine benchmarks at 5129.75 pystones/second
Less than 10 percent, but bad enough.
I guess we have to use MAL's test suite and measure everything
alone.
ciao - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@appliedbiometrics.com>
Applied Biometrics GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.com
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