On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> I just performed some benchmark of pymalloc, compared to glibc 2.2
> malloc, using xmlproc (a pure-Python XML parser) as the sample
> application. On an artificial input document, the standard
> configuration ran 16.3s; the configuration with pymalloc ran 15s.
I've also been playing with this on FreeBSD and OS/2, using PyBench and
others, with gains of about 3%.
> I recommend to enable pymalloc by default; I can commit the necessary
> changes if desired.
+1
Also interesting to note that current CVS seems to be doing ~7-8% better
than 2.2 even without pymalloc, at least on those benchmarks I've compared
both with (pystone, PyBench.
--
Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..."
E-mail: andymac@bullseye.apana.org.au | Snail: PO Box 370
andymac@pcug.org.au | Belconnen ACT 2616
Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia
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