[Tim] > 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. [Guido] > I was baffled at this too (same difference on my box), until I > discovered that the buffer size is specified *twice*: once as a > default in the arg list of readlines_sizehint(), then *again* in > the call to timer() near the bottom of the file. Bingo! > Take the latter one out and the times are comparable, in fact > readlines_sizehint() is a few percent quicker. They're indistinguishable then on my box (on one run xreadlines is .1 seconds (out of around 7.6 total) quicker, on another readlines_sizehint), *provided* that I specify the same buffer size (8192) that xreadlines uses internally. However, if I even double that, readlines_sizehint is uniformly about 10% slower. It's also a tiny bit slower if I cut the sizehint buffer size to 4096. I'm afraid Mysteries will remain no matter how many person-decades we spend staring at this <0.5 wink> ...
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