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 <CABbL6oaiyhE_WcXdPd9fOp8XLQ-co5cSiFGfHWEo9YYFdy5erg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1368906393.5.0.772712845262.issue18003@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
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
History
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