This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | amaury.forgeotdarc, jafo, lemburg, orivej, pitrou |
| Date | 2008年03月20日.19:36:48 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.33095393 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1206041810.78.0.198129890024.issue1943@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
You are right, #2321 made the numbers a bit tighter: With a small string: ./python -m timeit -s "s=open('INTBENCH', 'r').read()" "s.split()" -> Unpatched py3k: 23.1 usec per loop -> Freelist patch: 21.3 usec per loop -> PyVarObject patch: 20.5 usec per loop With a medium-sized string: ./python -m timeit -s "s=open('LICENSE', 'r').read()" "s.split()" -> Unpatched py3k: 406 usec per loop -> Freelist patch: 353 usec per loop -> PyVarObject patch: 314 usec per loop With a long string: ./python -m timeit -s "s=open('Misc/HISTORY', 'r').read()" "s.split()" -> Unpatched py3k: 22.7 msec per loop -> Freelist patch: 24 msec per loop -> PyVarObject patch: 20.6 msec per loop stringbench3k: -> Unpatched py3k: 266 seconds -> Freelist patch: 264 seconds -> PyVarObject patch: 249 seconds Regarding your benchmarking suggestion, this would certainly be an interesting thing to do, but I fear it is also much more than I'm willing to do... I'm going to post the updated patches. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年03月20日 19:36:51 | pitrou | set | spambayes_score: 0.330954 -> 0.33095393 recipients: + pitrou, lemburg, jafo, amaury.forgeotdarc, orivej |
| 2008年03月20日 19:36:50 | pitrou | set | spambayes_score: 0.330954 -> 0.330954 messageid: <1206041810.78.0.198129890024.issue1943@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年03月20日 19:36:49 | pitrou | link | issue1943 messages |
| 2008年03月20日 19:36:48 | pitrou | create | |