Message337778
| Author |
methane |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, josh.r, louielu, methane, r.david.murray, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, xiang.zhang |
| Date |
2019年03月12日.17:10:25 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1552410625.16.0.646716778557.issue30040@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Another micro benchmark:
$ ./py.edict.opt -m perf timeit --compare-to ./py.master.opt '{}' --duplicate=10
py.master.opt: ..................... 26.3 ns +- 0.5 ns
py.edict.opt: ..................... 13.0 ns +- 0.1 ns
Mean +- std dev: [py.master.opt] 26.3 ns +- 0.5 ns -> [py.edict.opt] 13.0 ns +- 0.1 ns: 2.02x faster (-51%)
$ ./py.edict.opt -m perf timeit --compare-to ./py.master.opt 'd={}; d["a"]=None' --duplicate=10
py.master.opt: ..................... 58.1 ns +- 0.9 ns
py.edict.opt: ..................... 64.1 ns +- 0.9 ns
Mean +- std dev: [py.master.opt] 58.1 ns +- 0.9 ns -> [py.edict.opt] 64.1 ns +- 0.9 ns: 1.10x slower (+10%)
Hmm, while 2x faster temporal empty dict is nice, 10% slower case can be mitigated.
I will try more micro benchmarks and optimizations. |
|