On 8/16/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have now some numbers. For the attached t.py, the unmodified svn > python gives > > Test 1 3.25420880318 > Test 2 1.86433696747 > > and the one with the attached patch gives > > Test 1 3.45080399513 > Test 2 2.09729003906 > > So there apparently is a performance drop on int allocations of about > 5-10%. > > On this machine (P4 3.2GHz) I could not find any difference in pystones > from this patch. > > Notice that this test case is extremely focused on measuring int > allocation (I just noticed I should have omitted the for loop in > the second case, though).
I think the test isn't hardly focused enough on int allocation. I wonder if you could come up with a benchmark that repeatedly allocates 100s of 1000s of ints and then deletes them? What if it also allocates other small objects so the ints become more fragmented? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
