Paul Watson wrote:
> This is Cyngwin on Windows XP.
using cygwin to analyze performance characteristics of portable API:s
is a really lousy idea.
here are corresponding figures from a real operating system:
using a 16 MB file:
$ time python2.4 scanmap.py
real 0m0.080s
user 0m0.070s
sys 0m0.010s
$ time python2.4 scanpaul.py
real 0m0.458s
user 0m0.450s
sys 0m0.010s
using a 256 MB file (50% of available memory):
$ time python2.4 scanmap.py
real 0m0.913s
user 0m0.810s
sys 0m0.100s
$ time python2.4 scanpaul.py
real 0m7.149s
user 0m6.950s
sys 0m0.200s
using a 1024 MB file (200% of available memory):
$ time python2.4 scanpaul.py
real 0m34.274s
user 0m28.030s
sys 0m1.350s
$ time python2.4 scanmap.py
real 0m20.221s
user 0m3.120s
sys 0m1.520s
(Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz, 512 MB RAM, relatively slow ATA
disks, relatively recent Linux, best result of multiple mixed runs shown.
scanmap performance would probably improve if Python supported the
"madvise" API, but I don't have time to test that today...)
</F>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
