(Victor wears his benchmark hat.) 2017-06-28 15:50 GMT+02:00 Ben Hoyt <benh...@gmail.com>: > ../test_none.sh > x = 1234; x is None -- 20000000 loops, best of 5: 19.8 nsec per loop > x = 1234; x is not None -- 10000000 loops, best of 5: 20 nsec per loop > x = None; x is None -- 10000000 loops, best of 5: 20.7 nsec per loop > x = None; x is not None -- 10000000 loops, best of 5: 20.8 nsec per loop > avg 20.3 nsec per loop
Hum, please use perf timeit instead of timeit, it's more reliable. See also: "How to get reproductible benchmark results" http://perf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_benchmark.html#how-to-get-reproductible-benchmark-results > [2] Benchmarks comparing master and is_none_bytecode patch (each > compiled with --enable-optimizations) using python/performance: > > +-------------------------+------------+------------------------------+ > | Benchmark | master_opt | is_none_bytecode_opt | > +=========================+============+==============================+ > | 2to3 | 617 ms | 541 ms: 1.14x faster (-12%) | > +-------------------------+------------+------------------------------+ > | chameleon | 19.9 ms | 18.6 ms: 1.07x faster (-7%) | > +-------------------------+------------+------------------------------+ > | crypto_pyaes | 208 ms | 201 ms: 1.04x faster (-3%) | > +-------------------------+------------+------------------------------+ > | deltablue | 13.8 ms | 12.9 ms: 1.07x faster (-7%) | FYI you can add the -G option to perf compare_to to sort results by speed (group faster & slower). It gives a more readable table. I also like using --min-speed=5 to ignore changes smaller than 5%, it reduces the noise and makes the stable more readable. Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
