Michael Fox added the comment: 3.4 is much better but still 4x slower than 2.7
m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time python2.7 lzmaperf.py 102368 real 0m0.053s user 0m0.052s sys 0m0.000s m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time ~/tmp/cpython-23836f17e4a2/bin/python3.4 lzmaperf.py 102368 real 0m0.229s user 0m0.212s sys 0m0.012s The bottleneck has moved here: 102369 0.151 0.000 0.226 0.000 lzma.py:333(readline) I don't know if this is a strictly fair comparison. The lzma module and pyliblzma may not be of the same quality. I've just come across a real bug in pyliblzma. It doesn't apply to this test, but who knows what shortcuts it's taking. Finally, here's a baseline: m@air:~/q/topaz/parse_datalog$ time xzcat bigfile.xz | wc -l 102368 real 0m0.034s user 0m0.024s sys 0m0.016s On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Nadeem Vawda <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Nadeem Vawda added the comment: > > Have you tried running the benchmark against the default (3.4) branch? > There was some significant optimization work done in issue 16034, but > the changes were not backported to 3.3. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue18003> > _______________________________________ -- - Michael ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18003> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com