[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

STINNER Victor added the comment: I wrote a whole new project "perf" to fix root issues of this issue. It includes a timeit command. I suggest you to use "perf timeit" rather than "timeit" because perf is more reliable: http://perf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cli.html#timeit --

[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

Changes by Guido van Rossum : -- nosy: -gvanrossum ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- nosy: +gvanrossum, tim.peters ___ Python tracker ___

[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

STINNER Victor added the comment: Hi, I develop a new implementation of timeit which should be more reliable: http://perf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ * Run 25 processes instead of just 1 * Compute average and standard deviation rather than the minimum * Don't disable the garbage collector * Skip

[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

New submission from Robert Collins: In #6422 Haypo suggested making the timeit reports much better. This is a new ticket just for that. See https://bitbucket.org/haypo/misc/src/tip/python/benchmark.py and

[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: See also issue21988. -- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue23693 ___ ___

[issue23693] timeit accuracy could be better

STINNER Victor added the comment: Not only I'm too lazy to compute manually the number of loops and repeat, but also I don't trust myself. It's even worse when someone publishs results of a micro-benchmark. I don't trust how the benchmark was calibrated. In my experience, micro-benchmark are