RetroSearch Browse

Fri Apr 29 14:37:29 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/111122.html

DasIch wrote:
> Given those facts I think including pybench is a mistake. It does not
> allow for a fair or meaningful comparison between implementations
> which is one of the things the suite is supposed to be used for in the
> future.
> 
> This easily leads to misinterpretation of the results from this
> particular benchmark and it negatively affects the performance data as
> a whole.
> 
> The same applies to several Unladen Swallow microbenchmarks such as
> bm_call_method_*, bm_call_simple and bm_unpack_sequence.

I don't think we should exclude any implementation specific
benchmarks from a common suite.

They will not necessarily allow for comparisons between
implementations, but will provide important information
about the progress made in optimizing a particular
implementation.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Apr 29 2011)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
2011-06-20: EuroPython 2011, Florence, Italy               52 days to go

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/111122.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposal for a common benchmark suite