Message216056
> Can you please extend your benchmark to also measure read and readinto?
Yes - but I don't quite understand why it matters (if you need read1/readinto1, you cannot just use read/readinto instead).
C readinto1: 4.638e-01 seconds
C read1: 4.026e-01 seconds
C readinto: 4.655e-01 seconds
C read: 4.028e-01 seconds
Python readinto1: 1.056e+00 seconds
Python read1: 2.429e+00 seconds
Python readinto: 1.895e+00 seconds
Python read: 1.218e+00 seconds
That shows that the Python readinto is definetely not up-to-par and could use improvement as well. Is that what you're getting at?
> I'm puzzled why you are treating readinto1 differently from readinto.
Maybe this is why we seem to be talking past each other :-). I did not look or work on readinto at all. All I noticed is that there is a read1, but no readinto1. So I implemented a readinto1 as well as I could. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-04-14 02:26:37 | nikratio | set | recipients:
+ nikratio, loewis, pitrou, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, stutzbach, hynek |
2014-04-14 02:26:37 | nikratio | set | messageid: <1397442397.35.0.120615304836.issue20578@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-04-14 02:26:37 | nikratio | link | issue20578 messages |
2014-04-14 02:26:36 | nikratio | create | |
|