Message157375
It would be better if you provide a working script that demonstrates the issue. I have completed your example (attached).
I ran the example on Python 3.1 and received:
0.249999046326
9.8737308979
0.587980985641
Then I ran on Python 3.3:
0.2100839614868164
0.8649246692657471
0.6062228679656982
As you can see, the new implementation is much faster. Benefit from caching decreased. I suppose, if we implement caching in C the difference will be more.
Then I increased the size of the cycles in 10 times, and the time is almost equal (on Python 3):
1.8386573791503906
8.418540477752686
8.355770826339722
That I can't to explain. The time of cached version increased disproportionately, more than in 10 times. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-04-02 19:18:45 | serhiy.storchaka | set | recipients:
+ serhiy.storchaka, jcea, skrah, Jimbofbx |
2012-04-02 19:18:45 | serhiy.storchaka | set | messageid: <1333394325.01.0.203184394671.issue14478@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-04-02 19:18:44 | serhiy.storchaka | link | issue14478 messages |
2012-04-02 19:18:44 | serhiy.storchaka | create | |
|