New submission from Antony Lee <anntzer....@gmail.com>:
Currently, methodcaller is not faster than a plain lambda:
```
In [1]: class T:
...: a = 1
...: def f(self): pass
...:
In [2]: from operator import *
In [3]: %%timeit t = T(); mc = methodcaller("f")
...: mc(t)
...:
...:
83.1 ns ± 0.862 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)
In [4]: %%timeit t = T(); mc = lambda x: x.f()
...: mc(t)
...:
...:
81.4 ns ± 0.0508 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)
```
(on some machines, I find that it is even slower).
Compare with attrgetter, which *is* faster:
```
In [5]: %%timeit t = T(); ag = attrgetter("a")
...: ag(t)
...:
...:
33.7 ns ± 0.0407 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)
In [6]: %%timeit t = T(); ag = lambda x: x.a
...: ag(t)
...:
...:
50.1 ns ± 0.057 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)
```
Given that the operator module explicitly advertises itself as being
"efficient"/"fast", it seems reasonable to try to optimize methodcaller.
Looking at its C implementation, methodcaller currently uses PyObject_GetAttr
followed by PyObject_Call; I wonder whether this can be optimized using a
LOAD_METHOD-style approach to avoid the construction of the bound method (when
applicable)?
----------
components: Library (Lib)
messages: 399066
nosy: Antony.Lee
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Could operator.methodcaller be optimized using LOAD_METHOD?
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue44850>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
