[Skip Montanaro] > ... > I came up with the following "benchmarks": > > for i in xrange(100000): pass > for i in xrange(100000): x = 1 > for i in xrange(100000): x = ``1`+`2`` > > user mode times on my computer (sys mode was always 0.0) were > > Python 1.6 Python 2.1 change > pass 0.12 0.20 1.67x > x = 1 0.17 0.30 1.76x > x = ``1`+`2`` 1.60 2.13 1.33x Please don't post stuff with hard tab characters (I took them out by hand so this wasn't an unreadable mess). > Startup times (python -S -c 'pass') are 0.0 for both versions on > my 'puter. It appears loop execution overhead has gotten substantially > worse between 1.6 and 2.1. AFAIK, nothing relevant changed between 1.6 and 2.1. Anyone else? Indeed, AFIAK, *nothing* plausibly relevant about about for-loops or xrange has changed since 1.5 (when some general eval-loop speedups got done). > ... > but it would seem a good time to reserve a minor version for mostly > performance improvements. 2.3 perhaps? The loop speedup in 2.2 requires changes in the PVM as well as adopting the iterator protocol. If you've got some *easy* performance improvements, sure, but then I have to wonder why you've been holding them back <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