RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 2 22:08:51 CET 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-February/085830.html

On 2009-02-02 14:50, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Really drastic performance degradations would be on the radar as well -
> slowing pprint() down by 10% is unlikely to bother anyone, but slowing
> it down by 100% would be a bad thing (not that I think such a
> degradation is likely, I'm just trying to give an impression of the
> magnitude of change I'll be trying to measure).

Using the pretty module I referenced earlier, which basically uses 
simplegeneric's lookup algorithm:

In [11]: %timeit x=pprint.pformat(sys.modules)
10 loops, best of 3: 27.5 ms per loop

In [12]: %timeit x=pretty.pretty(sys.modules)
10 loops, best of 3: 39.9 ms per loop

In [13]: len(sys.modules)
Out[13]: 517

The comparison is somewhat dodgy, though. pretty is not so much a refactoring of 
pprint as a reimplementation, so the time differences may not be due to the 
dispatch.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-February/085830.html below:

[Python-Dev] pprint(iterator)