Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: -> 2.6: ('Using queue.Queue with small data : ', 0.77207708358764648) ('Using queue.Queue with huge data : ', 0.78139781951904297) ('Using multiprocessing.Queue with small data : ', 3.5506501197814941) ('Using multiprocessing.Queue with huge data : ', 12.678884983062744)
-> 2.7: ('Using queue.Queue with small data : ', 0.6554868221282959) ('Using queue.Queue with huge data : ', 0.6591911315917969) ('Using multiprocessing.Queue with small data : ', 3.543262004852295) ('Using multiprocessing.Queue with huge data : ', 11.268373012542725) -> 3.2: Using queue.Queue with small data : 0.5930910110473633 Using queue.Queue with huge data : 0.5892350673675537 Using multiprocessing.Queue with small data : 3.082779884338379 Using multiprocessing.Queue with huge data : 10.735719919204712 The performance issue seems to have disappeared. 3.2 is faster than 2.7 and 2.6. PS: I've lowered the iteration count in the script so that it doesn't take too much time ---------- nosy: +pitrou resolution: -> out of date status: open -> closed versions: -Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Python 3.2 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8995> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com