Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Consider trying:
import sys
sys.modules[_json] = 0 # Block the C extension
import json
in a fresh interpreter.
Thanks for the tip. The revised script at
https://gist.github.com/924626
shows more believable numbers vis-à-vis the no-speedups
Matt Billenstein, 17.04.2011 00:47:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
250ms vs 5.5s encoding and
Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
standard library json module.
Can you kindly point to that demonstration?
That sound like *very* worth pursuing (and
crazy not to pursue). I've had json serialisation be the bottleneck in
web applications generating
Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 19:27:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
Bob made a comment in passing that simplejson (Python) is about as fast as
stdlib json (C extension), on 2.x.
I think Bob tested with an outdated version of the stdlib json module
(2.6 or 2.7,
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:22:20AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Matt Billenstein, 17.04.2011 00:47:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Feel free to share your numbers.
I've now got my fork working on Python 3.2 with speedups. According to a
non-scientific simple test:
Python 2.7
==
Python version: 2.7.1+ (r271:86832, Apr 11 2011, 18:05:24)
[GCC 4.5.2]
11.21484375 KiB read
Stefan Behnel stefan_ml at behnel.de writes:
Well, if that is not possible, then the CPython devs will have a hard time
maintaining the json accelerator module in the long run. I quickly skipped
through the github version in simplejson, and it truly is some complicated
piece of code. Not
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:21:32 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 19:27:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
Bob made a comment in passing that simplejson (Python) is about as fast as
stdlib json (C extension), on 2.x.
I
Vinay Sajip, 17.04.2011 12:33:
Antoine Pitrou writes:
Feel free to share your numbers.
I've now got my fork working on Python 3.2 with speedups. According to a
non-scientific simple test:
Python 2.7
==
Python version: 2.7.1+ (r271:86832, Apr 11 2011, 18:05:24)
[GCC 4.5.2]
11.21484375
On 17/04/2011 00:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwismartinat v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need
On 17/04/2011 07:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
standard library json module.
Can you kindly point to that demonstration?
Hmm... according to a later email in this thread it is 350ms vs 250ms
for an 11kb sample. That's a nice
On 17/04/2011 17:05, Michael Foord wrote:
On 17/04/2011 00:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwismartinat v.loewis.de
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:09:17 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 17/04/2011 07:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
standard library json module.
Can you kindly point to that demonstration?
Hmm... according
Of course, people might find other workloads which show bigger disparity in
performance, or might find something in my 3.x port of simplejson which
invalidates my finding of a 2% difference.
Thanks a lot for doing this research, by the way.
Regards,
Martin
Stefan Behnel stefan_ml at behnel.de writes:
Is this using the C accelerated version in both cases? What about the pure
Python versions? Could you provide numbers for both?
What I posted earlier were C-accelerated timings. I'm not sure exactly how to
turn off the speedups for stdlib json.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It's quite likely that I've failed to turn off the stdlib json speedups
(though
I attempted to turn them off for both encoding and decoding), which would
explain the big disparity in the non-speedup case. Perhaps
Sandro Tosi sandro.tosi at gmail.com writes:
The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
2.1.13 .
I think you mean 2.1.3?
Their 2
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein m...@vazor.com wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decoding an 11KB json object 1000 times...
This doesn't have much value if you don't
Sandro Tosi sandro.tosi at gmail.com writes:
Luckily, upstream is receptive for patches, so part of the job is to
forward patches written for cpython not already in the upstream code.
Further to my earlier response to your post, I should mention that my fork of
simplejson at
Hello Vinay,
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
Python 3, it may be better to:
1.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
maintaining stdlib code, and python-dev members aren't interested in
maintaining
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
maintaining stdlib
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the
Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 16:19:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
Python 3, it may be better to:
1. Convert the
On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:04:53 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Well, if that is not possible, then the CPython devs will have a hard time
maintaining the json accelerator module in the long run. I quickly skipped
through the github version in simplejson, and it truly is some
On 2011-04-16, at 17:25 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
Hi Antoine,
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance.
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json. But if the json module is languishing in comparison to
I've contributed a couple of patches myself after they were integrated
to CPython (they are part of the performance improvements Bob is talking
about), but that was exceptional. Backporting a patch to another project
with a different directory structure, a slightly different code, etc. is
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance.
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json.
No, that's not what
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json. But if the json module is languishing in comparison to simplejson, then
bringing the code bases closer together may be worthwhile.
Right: *if* the module is languishing. But it's not. It just diverges.
It may
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of continuous
improvement in general...
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of
continuous
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
I can see three possible areas of improvment:
1. Bugs: if there are any, they should clearly be fixed. However, JSON
is a simple format, so the implementation should be able to converge
to something fairly correct quickly.
2. Performance:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwismartinat v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwismartinat v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein m...@vazor.com wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decoding an
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
normal flow of
Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
will mostly be about API (indentation, object conversion, etc)
and optimization. I presume the core parsing logic won't
be changing much.
Actually the core parsing logic is very different (and MUCH faster),
Are you talking about the
On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
will mostly be about API (indentation, object conversion, etc)
and optimization. I presume the core parsing logic won't
be changing much.
Actually the core parsing
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
will mostly be about API (indentation, object conversion, etc)
and optimization. I presume the core
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
will mostly be about API
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
Bob Ippolito b...@redivi.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Since
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
Bob Ippolito b...@redivi.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
On
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 05:03:55PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
Bob Ippolito b...@redivi.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 05:03:55PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
Bob Ippolito b...@redivi.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Hi all,
it all started with issue10019.
The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
2.1.13 .
Their 2 roads had diverged a lot, and since
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:22:27 +0200
Sandro Tosi sandro.t...@gmail.com wrote:
But how am I going to do this? let's do a brain-dump:
IMHO, you should compute the diff between 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 and try to
apply it to the CPython source tree (you'll probably have to change the
file paths).
- what
- what are we going to do in the long run? how can we assure we'll be
having a healthy collaboration with upsteam? f.e. in case a bug is
reported (and later on fixed) in cpython? is there a policy for
projects present in cpython and also maintained elsewhere?
At the end: do you have some
On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
2.1.13 .
Their 2 roads had diverged
51 matches
Mail list logo
