On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:27 AM, claudio canepa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Joe Wreschnig <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> As the commit message says, about 3x faster, and invalidate is in turn >> a large part of the cost of updating a sprite's vertices. Python max >> and min are ridiculously slow because of how much work they do. >> >> A quick timeit bears out the 3x claim: >> $ python -m timeit "a = 1; b = 2; c = max(a, b)" >> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.438 usec per loop >> $ python -m timeit "a = 1; b = 2; c = a if a > b else b" >> 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.153 usec per loop >> > > what about: >>>> s3 = """\ > ... a=1; b=2 > ... if a>b: > ... c=a > ... else: > ... c=b > ... if a<b: > ... d=b > ... else: > ... d=a > ... """ >>>> t = timeit.Timer(stmt=s3) >>>> print "%.2f usec/pass" % (1000000 * t.timeit(number=100000)/100000) > 0.25 usec/pass > >>>> s2 = a=1; b=2 >>>> s2 = """\ > ... a=1; b=2 > ... c = a if a>b else b > ... d = b if a<b else a > ... """ >>>> t = timeit.Timer(stmt=s2) >>>> print "%.2f usec/pass" % (1000000 * t.timeit(number=100000)/100000) > 0.26 usec/pass > > The timings are near, but the first doesn't break compat with 2.4 > I dont use so much 2.4, except when there are no binaries for 2.6, like that > physics lib (pyOde ? pyOgre?) > It is not so much important for me, but perhaps is better if you state what > python version will support pyglet.
That was a code snippet to demonstrate the speed difference, not the actual proposed change. (I thought we were going to have the discussions of the patches on the issue tracker?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
