On 4/7/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even with the cache I put in? The hairy algorithm doesn't get invoked
> more than once per actual signature (type tuple).
OK, I timed this, and the @overloaded function (when it hits the
cache) is indeed 4-7 times slower than a handwritten decision tree
with about 5 cases (depending on which case gets hit).
But I can make the @overloaded function twice as fast by in-lining the
first few lines of find_func() and using a different expression for
calculating the types tuple:
tuple(map(type, args))
(despite allocating a throw-away list first) is more than twice as fast as
tuple(type(a) for a in args)
and that's where most of the time went. A bit of speedup also came
from avoiding to call find_func() if there's a cache hit. So I think
that with some additional effort and/or a tiny bit of C code, the
speed issue *when the cache works* can be solved.
Is the performance of the full-fledged algorithm really that much of an issue?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
