On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Armin Ronacher <armin.ronacher <at> active-4.com> writes: > >> What are you trying to argue? That the overall Django testsuite does >> not do a lot of string processing, less processing with native strings? >> >> I'm surprised you see a difference at all over the whole Django >> testsuite and I wonder why you get a slowdown at all for the ported >> Django on 2.7. > > The point of the figures is to show there is *no* difference (statistically > speaking) between the three sets of samples. Of course, any individual run or > set of runs could be higher or lower due to other things happening on the > machine (not that I was running any background tasks), so the idea of the simple > statistical analysis is to determine whether these samples could all have come > from the same populations. According to ministat, they could have (with a 95% > confidence level). But the stuff you run is not really benchmarking anything. As far as I know django benchmarks benchmark something like mostly DB creation and deletion, although that might differ between CPython and PyPy. How about running *actual* django benchmarks, instead of the test suite? Not that proving anything is necessary, but if you try to prove something, make it right. Cheers, fijal
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