Message308907
In the addition of the `fromisoformat()` alternate constructor (bpo-15873: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4699), I noted that I was able to get some significant speedup by special-casing the `datetime` baseclass in the C code so that it bypasses the Python constructor, by replacing code that looks like this:
return PyObject_CallFunction(cls, "iii", year, month, day);
With code that looks like this:
PyObject *result;
if ( (PyTypeObject *)cls == & PyDateTime_DateType ) {
result = new_date_ex(year, month, day, (PyTypeObject *)cls);
} else {
result = PyObject_CallFunction(cls, "iii", year, month, day);
}
return result;
(This is for `date`, but the results are even more striking for `datetime`).
In my initial proof of concept implementation of a `new_date_subclass_ex` method, I've seen (this is not compiled with optimizations on, mind you) speedups for the other constructors as well:
Old constructor:
================
Class: date
constructor: 940.5ns
date.fromordinal: 1544.8ns
date.fromtimestamp: 1941.9ns
Class: DateSubclass
constructor: 1016.6ns
date.fromordinal: 1760.3ns
date.fromtimestamp: 2295.3ns
With fastpath:
==============
Class: date
constructor: 964.3ns
date.fromordinal: 997.6ns
date.fromtimestamp: 1130.2ns
Class: DateSubclass
constructor: 1086.9ns
date.fromordinal: 1818.5ns
date.fromtimestamp: 2129.9ns
As you can see, this is a fairly significant speedup in the common case with no cost in the unusual case and no change in behavior. I propose that we switch over all the C constructors where it makes sense to do so in date, time and datetime.
I'll have a PR forthcoming soon. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-12-21 21:51:14 | p-ganssle | set | recipients:
+ p-ganssle, belopolsky |
2017-12-21 21:51:14 | p-ganssle | set | messageid: <1513893074.5.0.213398074469.issue32403@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-12-21 21:51:14 | p-ganssle | link | issue32403 messages |
2017-12-21 21:51:14 | p-ganssle | create | |
|