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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-June/135247.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 471 -- os.scandir() function -- a better and faster directory iterator

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 -- os.scandir() function -- a better and faster directory iterator
• Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 -- os.scandir() function -- a better and faster directory iterator
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 28 June 2014 19:17, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed, but walking even a moderately large tree over the network can
> really hammer home the point that this offers a significant
> performance enhancement as the latency of access increases. I've found
> that kind of comparison can be eye-opening for folks that are used to
> only operating on local disks (even spinning disks, let alone SSDs)
> and/or relatively small trees (distro build trees aren't *that* big,
> but they're big enough for this kind of difference in access overhead
> to start getting annoying).

Oops, forgot to add - I agree this isn't a blocking issue for the PEP,
it's definitely only in "nice to have" territory.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 -- os.scandir() function -- a better and faster directory iterator
• Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 471 -- os.scandir() function -- a better and faster directory iterator
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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