Author yselivanov
Recipients Yury.Selivanov, casevh, josh.r, lemburg, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, vstinner, yselivanov, zbyrne
Date 2016-02-05.00:09:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> People should stop getting hung up about benchmarks numbers and instead should first think about what they are trying to *achieve*. FP performance in pure Python does not seem like an important goal in itself.

I'm not sure how to respond to that.  Every performance aspect *is* important.  numpy isn't shipped with CPython, not everyone uses it.  In one of my programs I used colorsys extensively -- did I need to rewrite it using numpy?  Probably I could, but that was a simple shell script without any dependencies.

It also harms Python 3 adoption a little bit, since many benchmarks are still slower.  Some of them are FP related.

In any case, I think that if we can optimize something - we should.

> Also, some benchmarks may show variations which are randomly correlated with a patch (e.g. before of different code placement by the compiler interfering with instruction cache wayness). 

30-50% speed improvement is not a variation.  It's just that a lot less code gets executed if we inline some operations.

> It is important not to block a patch because some random benchmark on some random machine shows an unexpected slowdown.

Nothing is blocked atm, we're just discussing various approaches.

> That said, both of Serhiy's patches are probably ok IMO.

Current Serhiy's patches are incomplete.  In any case, I've been doing some research and will post another message shortly.
Date User Action Args
2016-02-05 00:09:37yselivanovsetrecipients: + yselivanov, lemburg, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, casevh, skrah, Yury.Selivanov, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, zbyrne
2016-02-05 00:09:37yselivanovsetmessageid: <>
2016-02-05 00:09:37yselivanovlinkissue21955 messages
2016-02-05 00:09:37yselivanovcreate