On 19 June 2018 at 16:12, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote: >> >> On 2018-06-18 16:55, INADA Naoki wrote: >> > Speeding up most python function and some bultin functions was very >> > significant. >> > But I doubt making some 3rd party call 20% faster can make real >> > applications significant faster. >> >> These two sentences are almost contradictory. I find it strange to claim >> that a given optimization was "very significant" in specific cases while >> saying that the same optimization won't matter in other cases. > > It's not contradictory because there is basis: > > In most real world Python application, number of calling Python methods or > bulitin functions are much more than other calls. > > For example, optimization for bulitin `tp_init` or `tp_new` by FASTCALL was > rejected because it's implementation is complex and it's performance gain is > not significant enough on macro benchmarks. > > And I doubt number of 3rd party calls are much more than calling builtin > tp_init or tp_new.
I was going to ask a question here about JSON parsing micro-benchmarks, but then I went back and re-read https://blog.sentry.io/2016/10/19/fixing-python-performance-with-rust.html and realised that the main problem discussed in that article was the *memory* overhead of creating full Python object instances, not the runtime cost of instantiating those objects. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
