M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Still, here's the timeit.py measurement of the PythonFunctionCall
> test (note that I've scaled down the test in terms of number
> of rounds for timeit.py):
>
> Python 2.4:
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.8 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.8 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
>
> Python 2.5 as of last night:
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.4 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.4 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.2 msec per loop
>
> The pybench 2.0 result:
>
> PythonFunctionCalls: 130ms 108ms +21.3% 132ms 109ms +20.9%
>
> Looks about right, I'd say.
If the pybench result is still 2.5 first, then the two results are
contradictory - your timeit results are showing Python 2.5 as being faster
(assuming the headings are on the right blocks of tests).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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