Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka+cpyt...@gmail.com> added the comment:
I think that In sum(range(1 << 1000, (1 << 1000) + 100)) it is dwarfed by repeated addition of long integers in sum(). I expect the the effect of this optimization is even less that 13% in this case. In any case, for sum(range(a, b)) it is better to use formula (b-a)*(a+b-1)//2 if it is performance critical to you. Iterating range object is pretty rare in Python (in most cases you iterate a sequence itself or enumerate object), and iterating range object for large integer is especially rare. Also, in real code you do not just iterate for the sake of iterating, you execute some code in every iteration. And it will make the effect of the optimization of this case much smaller, closer to 1% or 0.1% that to 13%. Last week Inada-san played with my old optimization patch for using free lists for integers and decided to close the issue. He, and I, and other core developers agreed that it is not worth. Besides that optimization would help in much more cases and had good effect in microbenchmarks. And I closed also my other optimization patch few days ago. And did it many times in past. It is fanny to microoptimize the code, add special cases here and there, but it makes code larger and less maintenable, and a lot of such microoptimizations can have negative cumulative effect on the performance of general code. Sometimes the work of the core developer is to say "No" to his own code. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42147> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
