Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
--
components: +Extension Modules -None
versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 2.7
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15328
___
Changes by Tshepang Lekhonkhobe tshep...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +tshepang
status: pending - open
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15328
___
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
If someone wants to propose a patch we can reopen the issue.
--
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15328
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
status: open - pending
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15328
___
___
Python-bugs-list
New submission from Lars Nordin lars.nor...@gmail.com:
The datetime.strptime works well enough for me it is just slow.
I recently added a comparison to a log parsing script to skip log lines earlier
than a set date. After doing so my script ran much slower.
I am processing 4,784,212 log lines
Lars Nordin lars.nor...@gmail.com added the comment:
Running the script without any timestamp comparison (and parsing more log
lines), gives these performance numbers:
log lines: 7,173,101
time output:
real1m9.892s
user0m53.563s
sys 0m1.592s
--
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Thanks for the report. However, do you have a patch to propose? Otherwise I'm
not sure there is a reason to keep this issue open...one can always say various
things are slow; that by itself is not a bug. Performance enhancement
