On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 13:21:36 -0400 > Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > One is moving benchmarks from PyPy over to the unladen repo on > > hg.python.org/benchmarks. But I wanted to first make sure people don't > view > > the benchmarks as immutable (e.g. as Octane does: > > https://developers.google.com/octane/faq). Since the benchmarks are > always > > relative between two interpreters their immutability isn't critical > > compared to if we were to report some overall score. But it also means > that > > any changes made would throw off historical comparisons. For instance, > if I > > take PyPy's Mako benchmark (which does a lot more work), should it be > named > > mako_v2, or should we just replace mako wholesale? > > mako_v2 sounds fine to me. Mutating benchmarks makes things confusing: > one person may report that interpreter A is faster than interpreter B > on a given benchmark, and another person retort that no, interpreter B > is faster than interpreter A. > > Besides, if you want to have useful timelines on speed.p.o, you > definitely need stable benchmarks. > > > And the second is the same question for libraries. For instance, the > > unladen benchmarks have Django 1.1a0 as the version which is rather > > ancient. And with 1.5 coming out with provisional Python 3 support I > > obviously would like to update it. But the same questions as with > > benchmarks crops up in reference to immutability. > > django_v2 sounds fine too :) > True, but having to carry around multiple copies of libraries just becomes a pain. > > > (e.g. I will have to probably update the 2.7 code to use > > io.BytesIO instead of StringIO.StringIO to be on more equal footing). > > I disagree. If io.BytesIO is faster than StringIO.StringIO then it's > normal for the benchmark results to reflect that (ditto if it's slower). > > > If we can't find a reasonable way to handle all of this then what I will > do > > is branch the unladen benchmarks for 2.x/3.x benchmarking, and then > create > > another branch of the benchmark suite to just be for Python 3.x so that > we > > can start fresh with a new set of benchmarks that will never change > > themselves for benchmarking Python 3 itself. > > Why not simply add Python 3-specific benchmarks to the mix? > You can then create a "py3" benchmark suite in perf.py (and perhaps > also a "py2" one). > To avoid historical baggage and to start from a clean slate. I don't necessarily want to carry around Python 2 benchmarks forever. It's not a massive concern, just a nicety.
_______________________________________________ Speed mailing list Speed@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
