On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 05:10, Aron Griffis wrote: > Sort of. It's true that there's a lot that could be done to improve > portage performance without changing languages. Nonetheless, even the > smallest test shows that python has a poor startup time. > > $ time python -c 'print "hi"' > user 0m0.023s > sys 0m0.004s > > $ time perl -e 'print "hi\n"' > user 0m0.003s > sys 0m0.003s
True, in fact python-2.3 is even worse at startup times. However, that python startup time is negligible compared to calling "import portage" where it loads the portdb from disk. For instance, the newest portage calls portageq continuously, and every instance of it does "import portage" which is really slow on my machine. When I say slow, that is a bit more than 2 seconds (5 seconds before disk cache). But if it runs that for every package I have in world, then that is 461*2 ~ 920seconds just for calling "import portage". Oh, and just for comparison: mcvaio work # time python -c 'print "hi"' hi real 0m0.244s user 0m0.107s sys 0m0.029s mcvaio work # time perl -e 'print "hi\n"' hi real 0m0.046s user 0m0.007s sys 0m0.008s (after a couple of runs) That is with python-2.3.2 and perl-5.8.2. Anyway, I've ventured far enough off topic here. I personally think speed is only one small factor in determining what portage-ng would use, more so for startup speed as well. Cheers, -- Alastair 'liquidx' Tse >> Gentoo Developer >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
