On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:01, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:33:55 -0700 > Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: >> >> So I started writing benchmark code in anticipation of needing to prove a >> minimal performance difference to justify bootstrapping importlib. Right now >> it only compares importing from sys.modules and built-in modules. You can >> run it with ``./python.exe -m importlib.test.benchmark``. If you add a `-b` >> option that will use the built-in __import__ implementation. > > In what unit are the numbers? Imports/second. I'll fix the code to state that. > > In any case, here my results under a Linux system: > > $ ./python -m importlib.test.benchmark > sys.modules [ 323782 326183 326667 ] best is 326667 > Built-in module [ 33600 33693 33610 ] best is 33693 > > $ ./python -m importlib.test.benchmark -b > sys.modules [ 1297640 1315366 1292283 ] best is 1315366 > Built-in module [ 58180 57708 58057 ] best is 58180 And this is what might make evaluating importlib tough; while the performance is 25% of what it is for import.c, being able to import over 300,000 times/second is still damn fast.
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