Wayne Werner wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there any additional overhead of using the locals() or format(locals())
instead of a tuple? - the format option is a double function call so I would
expect that to be considerably slower
Using the following code and timeit, it appears that there is a difference,
but unless you call 0.3-6 ns considerable (assuming I got my math correct:
The difference was ~1.2 or ~1.3 seconds for the classic, ~1.9 for the %
locals version, and timeit runs 1,000,000 times with the default settings),
then the difference isn't terrible.
I get similar speeds with Python 2.7:
>>> for f in [withargs, classicwithtuple, classicwithlocals]:
... t = timeit.Timer(f)
... print(t.timeit())
...
1.72170519829
1.18233394623
1.96000385284
However, a single reading with timeit is subject to a lot of noise.
Trying again:
>>> for f in [withargs, classicwithtuple, classicwithlocals]:
... t = timeit.Timer(f)
... print(min(t.repeat(repeat=5))) # Best of five runs.
...
1.19279980659
1.01878404617
1.56821203232
So, roughly speaking, it looks like the format method is about 20%
slower than % with a tuple, and using locals is about 60% slower.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - [email protected]
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
