Message189550
3.4 is much better but still 4x slower than 2.7
m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time python2.7 lzmaperf.py
102368
real 0m0.053s
user 0m0.052s
sys 0m0.000s
m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time
~/tmp/cpython-23836f17e4a2/bin/python3.4 lzmaperf.py
102368
real 0m0.229s
user 0m0.212s
sys 0m0.012s
The bottleneck has moved here:
102369 0.151 0.000 0.226 0.000 lzma.py:333(readline)
I don't know if this is a strictly fair comparison. The lzma module
and pyliblzma may not be of the same quality. I've just come across a
real bug in pyliblzma. It doesn't apply to this test, but who knows
what shortcuts it's taking.
Finally, here's a baseline:
m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time xzcat bigfile.xz | wc -l
102368
real 0m0.034s
user 0m0.024s
sys 0m0.016s
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Nadeem Vawda <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Nadeem Vawda added the comment:
>
> Have you tried running the benchmark against the default (3.4) branch?
> There was some significant optimization work done in issue 16034, but
> the changes were not backported to 3.3.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18003>
> _______________________________________
--
-
Michael |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2013-05-18 21:12:40 | Michael.Fox | set | recipients:
+ Michael.Fox, vstinner, nadeem.vawda |
2013-05-18 21:12:40 | Michael.Fox | link | issue18003 messages |
2013-05-18 21:12:40 | Michael.Fox | create | |
|