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 gvanrossum
Recipients facundobatista, gvanrossum, jyasskin, mark.dickinson, rhettinger
Date 2008-02-09.16:37:28
SpamBayes Score 0.00846061
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>

Yay for measurements!

I was going to say that __add__ is inefficient because it makes so
many function calls, but it turns out that, as you say, the cost of
constructing a new Rational instance drowns everything else. On my
2.8GHz iMac, Rational(2,3) costs ~80 usec. This goes down to 50 usec
if I make it inherit from object -- the ABC machinery costs 30 usecs!
If I then also comment out all the typechecking of numerator and
denominator and go straight into the gcd(), the constructor costs go
down to 6 (six!) usecs. Beyond that it's slim pickings; replacing
super() with object or inlining gcd wins perhaps half an usec. But
once the constructor is down to 5-6 usec, the half usec for going
through the constructor (times 6 for 6 constructor calls in _add()!)
might be a significant gain to also try and inline the common case of
the binary operators.

In the mean time I have two recommendations if you want to make the
constructor faster without losing functionality: (a) remove the direct
inheritance from RationalAbc (using virtual inheritance instead); (b)
special-case the snot out of the common path in the constructor
(called with two ints).

An alternative might be to have a private class or static method to
construct a  Rational from two ints that is used internally; it could
use object.__new__ instead of super() so as to save the ABC overhead.
But I'm not sure if this will always work.

Unrelated issue: I just realized for the first time that we have two
classes named 'Rational': the ABC and the concrete implementation.
That's going to be awfully confusing. Perhaps it's not too late to
rename to
Date User Action Args
2008-02-09 16:37:30gvanrossumsetspambayes_score: 0.00846061 -> 0.00846061
recipients: + gvanrossum, rhettinger, facundobatista, mark.dickinson, jyasskin
2008-02-09 16:37:29gvanrossumlinkissue1682 messages
2008-02-09 16:37:28gvanrossumcreate