On Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 8:50:20 AM, Alexander Petrov
alexandervpet...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
So at this time I didn't come to some kind of decision about PyPy.
On one hand in most of the cases with straitforward code/algorithms
and common syntax constructs there was significant
On 07/20/2011 08:50 AM, Alexander Petrov wrote:
So at this time I didn't come to some kind of decision about PyPy.
On one hand in most of the cases with straitforward code/algorithms
and common syntax constructs there was significant speed
improvement.
But on the other hand, for the cases
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 10:27:24 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski
fij...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:25 AM, David Fraser dav...@sjsoft.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 8:50:20 AM, Alexander Petrov
alexandervpet...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
So at this time I
Hi Alex,
Before attacking the problem with the JIT, we should understand better
why PyPy is 4-8 times slower than CPython. Normally you'd expect the
factor to be at most 2. I suppose the answer is that our
itertools.repeat() is bad for some reason.
A bientôt,
Armin.
Armin Rigo, 08.07.2011 11:18:
Before attacking the problem with the JIT, we should understand better
why PyPy is 4-8 times slower than CPython. Normally you'd expect the
factor to be at most 2. I suppose the answer is that our
itertools.repeat() is bad for some reason.
You shouldn't forget
I'm not too sure what could be better wrong with it, it's rather short:
https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/src/default/pypy/module/itertools/interp_itertools.py#cl-85
Alex
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Armin Rigo ar...@tunes.org wrote:
Hi Alex,
Before attacking the problem with the JIT, we
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Alexander Petrov alexandervpet...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi.
I'm new to PyPy and was trying to run some tests to see orders of
speed improvement.
Short script generating list of prime numbers using rather
straightforward implementation of Eratosthene's sieve.
Hi
When I change this line:
primes[i*i:N+1:i] = repeat(False, len(primes[i*i:N+1:i]))
into this :
primes[i*i:N+1:i] = [False] * len(primes[i*i:N+1:i])
PyPy is much faster (but is still slower than CPython), so I would guess
that the repeat function is the one to blame.
Cheers
Romain
On Fri,
repeat itself is not slow, it's just that when it's used it iterates over
it, in RPython (meaning it's not jit'd) which results in a dictionary lookup
for the next() method at every iteration, which is slowish, list hits a
special case so it doesn' thave that overhead.
Alex
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011
On 12:38 am, alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
repeat itself is not slow, it's just that when it's used it iterates
over
it, in RPython (meaning it's not jit'd) which results in a dictionary
lookup
for the next() method at every iteration, which is slowish, list hits a
special case so it doesn'
No, you would need to implement list.__setitem__ in Python, which we could
do, does the JIT see such code?
Alex
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 12:38 am, alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
repeat itself is not slow, it's just that when it's used it iterates over
11 matches
Mail list logo
