On 1/31/2010 2:04 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > On Jan 30, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> It does this by >> allowing many different byte compilation files (.pyc files) to be >> co-located with the Python source file (.py file). > > It would be nice if all the compilation files could be tucked > into one single zipfile per directory to reduce directory clutter. > > It has several benefits besides tidiness. It hides the implementation > details of when magic numbers get shifted. And it may allow faster > start-up times when the zipfile is in the disk cache. >
On a whim, I implemented a PEP302 loader that cached any important that it could find in sys.path into a zip file. I used running bzr as a startup benchmark, and I did my best to ensure an empty cache by running "sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; time bzr". On my particular machine, the "real" time was at minimum 3.5 seconds without using my ZipFileCacheLoader. With the loader, I found the same was true. The average performance was all over the place (due everything else in the operating system trying to fetch from the disk), and I lack enough data points to reach statistical significance. However, if the ".pyr" zip file is going to contain many versions of the same module, then the performance impact could be more real, since you would be forced to pull from disk *all* of the versions of a given module. -- Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com scod...@cs.indiana.edu _______________________________________________ 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
