On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
java-config --help
Python C
real 0m0.645s 0m0.002s
user 0m0.080s 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.040s 0m0.000s
I have not run the test myself, but I suspect that the majority of the
time being spent during the Python trial is being spent in the startup and
shutdown of the python interpretter. I would not expect the time spent
executing the actual Python scripting to be the cause of such slow
performance. An apples-to-apples comparison on the performance would be
to perform something like the following for both Python and C:
struct timeval startTime, endTime;
gettimeofday(&startTime, NULL);
for (int i=0; i <= largeNum; ++i)
{
/* Perform task to be profiled */
}
gettimeofday(&endTime, NULL);
/* Output the result of endTime - startTime */
This eliminates the time overhead of the startup and shutdown of the
process and only measures the actual work. Or, you could compile the
binary with -pg and run gprof on the resulting call graph to get a more
accurate picture.
You are right that the scripted version will be slower, but it won't be
anywhere near as slow as the numbers of your test suggest.
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2
RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
Unsubscribe [email protected]
