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 Michael.Fox
Recipients Michael.Fox, nadeem.vawda, vstinner
Date 2013-05-18.21:12:40
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
3.4 is much better but still 4x slower than 2.7

m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time python2.7

real    0m0.053s
user    0m0.052s
sys     0m0.000s
m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time

real    0m0.229s
user    0m0.212s
sys     0m0.012s

The bottleneck has moved here:
 102369    0.151    0.000    0.226    0.000

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

real    0m0.034s
user    0m0.024s
sys     0m0.016s

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Nadeem Vawda <> 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 <>
> <>
> _______________________________________


Date User Action Args
2013-05-18 21:12:40Michael.Foxsetrecipients: + Michael.Fox, vstinner, nadeem.vawda
2013-05-18 21:12:40Michael.Foxlinkissue18003 messages
2013-05-18 21:12:40Michael.Foxcreate