On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:35:15 -0000, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2005-12-07, Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2. If your system returns figures after the decimal point, it >> probably has better resolution than one second (go figure). >> Depending on what system it is, your best bet to determine >> why is to check the documentation for your system (also go >> figure), since the details are not really handled by >> Python. Going by memory, Linux will generally be 1ms >> resolution (I might be off by 10 there...), > >In my experience, time.time() on Linux has a resolution of >about 1us. The delta I get when I do > > print time.time()-time.time() > >is usually about 2-3us, but some of that is probably due to the >overhead involved. > Try >>> import time >>> t=time.time; c=time.clock >>> min(filter(None,(-float.__sub__(c(),c()) for x in xrange(10000)) ))*1e3 0.0058666657878347905 >>> min(filter(None,(-float.__sub__(t(),t()) for x in xrange(10000)) ))*1e3 9.9999904632568359 (This NT4 box is slow ;-) BTW time.time is just the 100hz scheduling slice >>> min(filter(None,(-float.__sub__(t(),t()) for x in xrange(10000)) ))**-1 100.00009536752259 >>> min(filter(None,(-float.__sub__(t(),t()) for x in xrange(10000)) ))**-1 100.00009536752259 >>> min(filter(None,(-float.__sub__(c(),c()) for x in xrange(10000)) ))**-1 149147.75106031806 Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
