On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > Thomas Wouters <thomas <at> python.org> writes: >> >> >> Pystone is pretty much a useless benchmark. If it measures anything, it's the > speed of the bytecode dispatcher (and it doesn't measure it particularly well.) > PyBench isn't any better, in my experience. > > I don't think pybench is useless. It gives a lot of performance data about > crucial internal operations of the interpreter. It is of course very little > real-world, but conversely makes you know immediately where a performance > regression has happened. (by contrast, if you witness a regression in a > high-level benchmark, you still have a lot of investigation to do to find out > where exactly something bad happened) > > Perhaps someone should start maintaining a suite of benchmarks, high-level and > low-level; we currently have them all scattered around (pybench, pystone, > stringbench, richard, iobench, and the various Unladen Swallow benchmarks; not > to mention other third-party stuff that can be found in e.g. the Computer > Language Shootout). Already in the works :) As part of the common standard library and test suite that we agreed on at the PyCon language summit last week, we're going to include a common benchmark suite that all Python implementations can share. This is still some months off, though, so there'll be plenty of time to bikeshed^Wrationally discuss which benchmarks should go in there. Collin
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