On 09/14/2018 02:54 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > On 2018-09-14, Larry Hastings wrote: > [...] >> improvement 0.21242667903482038 % > I assume that should be 21.2 % othewise I recommend you abandon the > idea. ;-P Yeah, that thing you said. > I wonder how much of the speedup relies on putting it in the data > segment (i.e. using linker/loader to essentially handle the > unmarshal). What if you had a new marshal format that only needed a > light 2nd pass in order to fix up the data loaded from disk? Some experimentation would be in order. I can suggest that, based on conversation from Carl, that adding the stat calls back in costs you half the startup. So any mechanism where we're talking to the disk _at all_ simply isn't going to be as fast. //arry/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180914/ab9d460c/attachment.html>
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