Final report (I've spent way more time on this than I can afford already, so
it's "final" by defn <0.3 wink>). We started here (on my Win98SE box, using
Guido's test program):
total 117615824 chars and 3237568 lines
count_chars_lines 14.780 14.772
readlines_sizehint 9.390 9.375
using_fileinput 66.130 66.157
while_readline 30.380 30.337
Here's where we are today:
total 117615824 chars and 3237568 lines
count_chars_lines 14.670 14.667
readlines_sizehint 9.500 9.506
using_fileinput 28.670 28.708
while_readline 13.680 13.676
for_xreadlines 7.630 7.635
Same box, same input file, same test program except for this addition:
def for_xreadlines(fn):
f = open(fn, MODE)
for line in xreadlines.xreadlines(f):
pass
f.close()
This last is within 25% of Perl "while (<>)" speed, but-- unlike Perl --is
thread-safe. Good show! The other speedups are nothing to snort at either.
The strangest thing left to my eye is why xreadlines enjoys a significant
advantage over the double-loop buffering method (readlines_sizehint) on my
box; reducing the very large (1Mb) buffer in Guido's test program made no
material difference to that.
nothing's-ever-finished-but-everything-ends-ly y'rs - tim
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