Also, are you using uvloop or vanilla asyncio? Try to benchmark vanilla first. And if you have time, please try to test different combinations on vanilla asyncio:
Python 3.5 + vanilla asyncio Python 3.6 + vanilla asyncio Python 3.6 + Py Future + Py Task Python 3.6 + Py Future + C Task Python 3.6 + C Future + C Task Python 3.6 + Py Future + Py Task Yury > On Nov 18, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 18, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Luca Sbardella <luca.sbarde...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> But tests taking 1.48 longer to run on average! >> Anything I should know about 3.6 and performance? >> > > > That shouldn’t happen. Are you sure you aren’t running them in debug mode? > Try to comment out imports of ‘_asyncio’ in futures.py and tasks.py and run > benchmarks in 3.6 to compare Py Futures to C Futures. > > Also, which Python 3.6 version are you using? Please try to build one from > the repo, I’ve fixed a couple of bugs since 3.6b2. > > Yury _______________________________________________ Async-sig mailing list Async-sig@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/async-sig Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
