I undrestand your point. Thank you for explanation.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 juillet 2011 à 03:15 +0300, Andrew Svetlov a écrit :
>> You right. Sorry, I missed changes in ceval.c for py3k.
>> Please note, simple test like:
>>
>> from timeit import timeit
>>
>> print('list', timeit("l[0]", "l = [1]"))
>> print('tuple', timeit("l[0]", "l = (1,)"))
>>
>> Has results:
>>
>> andrew@ocean ~/p/cpython> python2.7 z.py
>> ('list', 0.03479599952697754)
>> ('tuple', 0.046610116958618164)
>>
>> andrew@ocean ~/p/cpython> python3.2 z.py
>> list 0.04870104789733887
>> tuple 0.04825997352600098
>>
>> For python2.7 list[int] microoptimization saves 25-30%, while 3.2 (and
>> trunk) very close to "unoptimized" 2.7 version.
>
> My point is that on non-trivial benchmarks, the savings are almost zero.
> If you look at the (much more complex) patch I linked to, the savings
> are at most 10% on a couple of select benchmarks, other benchmarks
> showing almost no difference.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/andrew.svetlov%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
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
