Peter Otten wrote:
>
> # Norvitz/Lundh
> def writelines_data(out, data, map=map, str=str):
> SPACE_JOIN = ' '.join
> out.writelines(
> "ELEMENT %06d %s\n" % (i1, SPACE_JOIN(map(str, i2)))
> for i0, i1, i2 in data if i0 == 'ELEMENT'
> )
>
> def print_data(out, data):
> for name, index, items in data:
> if name == "ELEMENT":
> print >> out, "ELEMENT %06d" % index,
> for item in items:
> print >> out, item,
> print >> out
>
> Output on my machine:
>
> $ python2.5 writedata.py
> write_data 10.3382301331
> writelines_data 5.4960360527
> print_data 3.50765490532
Interesting. I timed with python2.4 and get this:
write_data 12.3158090115
writelines_data 5.02135300636
print_data 5.01881980896
A second run yielded:
write_data 11.5980260372
writelines_data 4.8575668335
print_data 4.84622001648
I'm surprised by your numbers a bit because I would expect string ops
to be faster in 2.5 than in 2.4 thanks to /F. I don't remember other
changes that would cause such an improvement for print between 2.4 and
2.5. (2.3 shows print doing a bit better than the times above.)
It could be that the variability is high due to lots of I/O or even
different builds. I'm on Linux.
> Moral: don't forget about good old print. It does have an opcode(*) of its
> own, after all.
Using print really should be faster as less objects are created.
> (*) or two
or 5 :-)
$ grep 'case PRINT_' Python/ceval.c
case PRINT_EXPR:
case PRINT_ITEM_TO:
case PRINT_ITEM:
case PRINT_NEWLINE_TO:
case PRINT_NEWLINE:
n
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
