On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de>wrote:
> >> In short, it's not worth worrying about, and definitely nothing that > >> should cause people to spread an idea that __init__.py somehow speeds > >> things up. > > > > The best way to avoid people spreading that idea would be to show hard > > measurements. > > PJE wants people to spread an idea, not to avoid them doing so. > > In any case, hard measurements might help to spread the idea, here are > mine. For the attached project, ec656d79b8ac gives, on my system > > import time for a namespace package: 113盜 (fastest run, hot caches) > import time for a regular package: 128盜 (---- " ------) > first-time import of regular package: 1859盜 (due to pyc generation) > (remove __init__.py and __pycache__ to construct the first setup) > > So namespace packages are indeed faster than regular packages, at least > in some cases. > I don't really want to spread the idea that they're faster, either: the exact same benchmark can probably be made to turn out differently if you have, say, a hundred unzipped eggs on sys.path after the benchmark directory. A more realistic benchmark would import more than one module, though... and then it goes back and forth, dueling benchmarks that can always be argued against with a different benchmark measuring different things with other setup conditions. That's what I meant by "lost in the noise": the outcome of the benchmark depends on which of many potentially-plausible setups and applications you choose to use as your basis for measurement, so it's silly to think that either omitting or including __init__.py should be done for performance reasons. Do whatever your application needs, because it's not going to make much difference either way in any realistic program.
_______________________________________________ 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
