On 2/8/2010 7:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
To tell the truth in most cases I hardly notice the extra time the first
run takes compared to later runs with the precompiled byte code. Yes it
may be a few seconds at start up, but after that it's usually not a big
part of the execution time. Hmmm, I wonder if there's a threshold in
file size where it really doesn't make a significant difference?
It's relative to runtime for the application itself (long-running
applications aren't going to notice as much of a percentage effect on
runtime) as well as to how many Python files are actually imported at
startup (only importing a limited number of modules, importing primarily
extension modules or effective use of a lazy module loading mechanism
will all drastically reduce the proportional impact of precompiled bytecode)
We struggle enough with startup time that doing anything that makes it
slower is rather undesirable though.
Definitely. I have even wondered whether it would be possible to cache
not just the bytecode for initializing a module, but also the
initialized module itself (perhaps minus the name bindings for other
imported modules).
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
