Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> 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 out of date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 <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8995>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
