M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Still, here's the timeit.py measurement of the PythonFunctionCall
> test (note that I've scaled down the test in terms of number
> of rounds for timeit.py):
>
> Python 2.4:
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.8 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.8 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
>
> Python 2.5 as of last night:
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.4 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.4 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.2 msec per loop
>
> The pybench 2.0 result:
>
> PythonFunctionCalls: 130ms 108ms +21.3% 132ms 109ms +20.9%
>
> Looks about right, I'd say.
except for the sign, I'd say.
pybench reported a slowdown from 108 to 130 ms, which prompted you to write
> A little disturbing is the slow-down for Python function calls
> and the built-in method lookup. Did anything change in these parts
> of the interpreter ?
but timeit is reporting a ~20% speedup (21.8 to 18 ms). on my machine,
using the loop body from Calls.PythonFunctionCalls.test as a separate
global function called by timeit, I get:
25 usec per loop for Python 2.4.3
22.5 usec per loop for Python 2.5 trunk
which seems to match your timeit results quite well. and we *did* speed
up frame handling on the reykjavik sprint.
another sprint optimization was exception handling, and pybench did
notice this (137 to 115 ms). here's what timeit says on my machine:
15.1 usec per loop for Python 2.4.3
23.5 usec per loop for Python 2.5 alpha 2
11.6 usec per loop for Python 2.5 trunk
something's not quite right...
</F>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
