Yury Selivanov added the comment: After some experiments, it looks like bind() is already pretty fast. The only way to increase its performance is to rewrite it in C.
I tried to approaches: 1. Refactor ._bind() to produce a high-level instruction set that can be cached, and is fast to iterate through and build BoundArguments. Repo: https://github.com/1st1/cpython/tree/bind Results: ==================================== =========== ============== =============== function / call bind (3.4) bind cache hit bind cache miss ==================================== =========== ============== =============== () / () 0.716s 0.746s (-4%) 0.799s (-10%) (a, b=1) / (10) 1.140s 0.910s (+20%) 1.294s (-12%) (a, b=1, *ar) / (10, 20, 30, 40) 1.352s 1.145s (+15%) 1.520s (-11%) (a, b=1, **ar) / (10, 20, z=30, y=4) 1.364s 1.233s (+10%) 1.660s (-18%) (a, b=1, *, z, **ar) / (1,2,z=3,y=4) 1.499s 1.363s (+10%) 1.897s (-26%) 2. Refactor ._bind() to compile a function that builds BoundArguments for te given args/kwargs shape. This approach yields more-or-less same results as (1), but performance of cache-miss case is just terrible (-200%). Compiling functions on the fly is expensive. Repo to play with: https://github.com/1st1/cpython/tree/bind_jit I'm closing this issue, until I (or someone else) can implement bind() in C (or come up with a faster pure-python implementation). ---------- resolution: -> postponed stage: needs patch -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23889> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
