That small performance increase may have come about from processor optimization that you did in the process of compiling, rather than any difference between 2.5 and 2.6. Standard packages rarely use much CPU optimization to maintain compatibility.
Just something to consider... -Mike On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Tycon <[email protected]> wrote: > > I haven't tried python 3, but I heard its performance is still lagging > compared to 2.6, in addition to the compatibility issues. So I don't > see any reason to try to upgrade to it at the moment. > > On Jan 10, 11:43 pm, Tycon <[email protected]> wrote: >> I performed some benchmarks on python 2.5 vs 2.6, using requests for >> simple pages as well as complex pages (with two-level db access) and >> I noticed python 2.6 gives about 4-5% better performance as shown in >> the request per second throughput. But python 2.6 is not yet >> available as a standard package in most linux distributions (e.g. >> debian), so I had to compile and install that from source, although I >> usually prefer to use the official debian packages. But I though that >> this consistent and noticeable small performance imporovment was worth >> it. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
