STINNER Victor added the comment: I adapted my micro-benchmark to measure the speedup: bench_bytearray2.py. Result on bytea_slice2.patch:
Common platform: CFLAGS: -Wno-unused-result -Werror=declaration-after-statement -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz Timer info: namespace(adjustable=False, implementation='clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC)', monotonic=True, resolution=1e-09) Platform: Linux-3.9.4-200.fc18.x86_64-x86_64-with-fedora-18-Spherical_Cow Python unicode implementation: PEP 393 Timer: time.perf_counter Bits: int=32, long=64, long long=64, size_t=64, void*=64 Timer precision: 40 ns Platform of campaign original: Date: 2013-09-30 23:39:31 Python version: 3.4.0a2+ (default:687dd81cee3b, Sep 30 2013, 23:39:27) [GCC 4.7.2 20121109 (Red Hat 4.7.2-8)] SCM: hg revision=687dd81cee3b tag=tip branch=default date="2013-09-29 22:18 +0200" Platform of campaign patched: Date: 2013-09-30 23:38:55 Python version: 3.4.0a2+ (default:687dd81cee3b+, Sep 30 2013, 23:30:35) [GCC 4.7.2 20121109 (Red Hat 4.7.2-8)] SCM: hg revision=687dd81cee3b+ tag=tip branch=default date="2013-09-29 22:18 +0200" ------------------------+-------------+------------ non regression | original | patched ------------------------+-------------+------------ concatenate 10**1 bytes | 1.1 us (*) | 1.14 us concatenate 10**3 bytes | 46.9 us | 46.8 us (*) concatenate 10**5 bytes | 4.66 ms (*) | 4.71 ms concatenate 10**7 bytes | 478 ms (*) | 483 ms ------------------------+-------------+------------ Total | 482 ms (*) | 488 ms ------------------------+-------------+------------ ----------------------------+-------------------+------------- deleting front, append tail | original | patched ----------------------------+-------------------+------------- buffer 10**1 bytes | 639 ns (*) | 689 ns (+8%) buffer 10**3 bytes | 682 ns (*) | 723 ns (+6%) buffer 10**5 bytes | 3.54 us (+428%) | 671 ns (*) buffer 10**7 bytes | 900 us (+107128%) | 840 ns (*) ----------------------------+-------------------+------------- Total | 905 us (+30877%) | 2.92 us (*) ----------------------------+-------------------+------------- ----------------------------+------------------+------------ Summary | original | patched ----------------------------+------------------+------------ non regression | 482 ms (*) | 488 ms deleting front, append tail | 905 us (+30877%) | 2.92 us (*) ----------------------------+------------------+------------ Total | 483 ms (*) | 488 ms ----------------------------+------------------+------------ @Serhiy: I see "zero" difference in the append loop micro-benchmark. I added the final cast to bytes() @Antoine: Your patch rocks, 30x faster! (I don't care of the 8% slowdown in the nanosecond timing). ---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31929/bench_bytearray2.py _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19087> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
