On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:27:06 am Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> Hello there.
> I've just noticed what I consider a performance problem:
> Using new style classes to provide attribute-like access using
> __getattr__ is considerably slower than old style classes: Observe:
>
> s = """
> class dude:
> def bar(self):pass
> def __getattr__(self, a): return a
> class dude2(object):
> def bar(self):pass
> def __getattr__(self, a): return a
> d = dude()
> d2 = dude2()
> d.a = d2.a = 1
> """
> timeit.Timer(´d.foo´, s).timeit()
> >0.32979211801421116
>
> timeit.Timer(´d2.foo´, s).timeit()
> > 1.1119853719342245
Not only don't I observe the same results as you, I'm afraid I can't
even get your code to run. I get a SyntaxError from the funny quotes
you're using: ´d.foo´ instead of 'd.foo' or "d.foo".
Also, I trust you know enough not to pay too much attention to a single
test result? Timing results are notoriously subject to interference
from external processes.
Finally, when reporting performance problems, it will be VERY helpful to
report the version and platform you are using. There's no point in
having people looking for a slow-down in Python 2.6 if you're actually
using Python 2.3 (say).
Anyway, for the record here are my results for Python 2.5. I don't
believe the differences are significant.
>>> min(Timer('d.foo', s).repeat())
1.9228429794311523
>>> min(Timer('d2.foo', s).repeat())
2.1040639877319336
>>> min(Timer('d.bar', s).repeat())
0.68272304534912109
>>> min(Timer('d2.bar', s).repeat())
0.41949796676635742
>>> min(Timer('d.a', s).repeat())
0.45727396011352539
>>> min(Timer('d2.a', s).repeat())
0.59516501426696777
--
Steven
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