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 steven.daprano
Recipients eric.smith, poostenr, steven.daprano, ubehera
Date 2016-01-15.01:40:50
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1452822052.48.0.209817977246.issue26118@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I cannot replicate that performance difference under Linux. There's a small difference (about 0.1 second per million iterations, or a tenth of a microsecond) on my computer, but I don't think that's meaningful:

    py> from timeit import Timer
    py> t1 = Timer('"{0},".format(999)')
    py> t2 = Timer('"\'{0}\',".format(999)')
    py> min(t1.repeat())
    4.671058462932706
    py> min(t2.repeat())
    4.774653751403093


Please re-run your tests using the timeit module, and see if you can still see a consistent difference with and without single quotes. Perhaps this is specific to Windows?

Otherwise, I can only suggest that the timing difference is unrelated to the difference in quotes in the script. Are you sure that this is absolutely the only change between the run that took one minute and the run that took 30 minutes? No other changes to the script, running on the same data file, on the same disk, no difference in what other processes are running? (E.g. if one run is fighting for disk access with, say, a memory-hungry anti-virus scan, that would easily explain the difference.)
History
Date User Action Args
2016-01-15 01:40:52steven.dapranosetrecipients: + steven.daprano, eric.smith, poostenr, ubehera
2016-01-15 01:40:52steven.dapranosetmessageid: <1452822052.48.0.209817977246.issue26118@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-01-15 01:40:52steven.dapranolinkissue26118 messages
2016-01-15 01:40:50steven.dapranocreate