On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> In any case, here my results under a Linux system: >> >> $ ./python -m importlib.test.benchmark >> sys.modules [ 323782 326183 326667 ] best is 326667 >> Built-in module [ 33600 33693 33610 ] best is 33693 >> >> $ ./python -m importlib.test.benchmark -b >> sys.modules [ 1297640 1315366 1292283 ] best is 1315366 >> Built-in module [ 58180 57708 58057 ] best is 58180 > > And this is what might make evaluating importlib tough; while the > performance is 25% of what it is for import.c, being able to import > over 300,000 times/second is still damn fast.
Yeah, I think the numbers where the filesystem gets involved are going to be more relevant. Modules that have already been cached and those built in to the executable aren't likely to dominate interpreter and application startup times (which is the main thing I'm worried about seeing regress). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
