Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > > Also, I don't get your remark about it running in a short time. Your > > patch AFAICT doesn't need any warm up period to exhibit any > > improvements. > > What I mean is that the runtime is so short, no one would notice any > change, so who cares?
None of the benchmarks used here are real-world workloads, so you might as well claim that they are all irrelevant. But then we'll have a hard time assessing the consequences of your patch. > > I don't think we should reduce the size of the method cache. 1024 is not > > a very large number, and might even be too small for complex OO > > programs. > > "not very large" or "too small", by what metric? By the metric of the number of classes and methods in a complex OO application (for example something based on Twisted or SQLAlchemy). > > I also think that, apart from the dict storage changes, your patch > > should strive not to change any other tunables. Otherwise we're really > > comparing apples to oranges. > > If the implementation changes, shouldn't the tunable parameters be retuned? Only if there's a reasoning behind it. Perhaps the retuning would have given the same results without the rest of your patch. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13903> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
