Sorry, here the tables properly formatted:
Function Name Inclusive Samples Exclusive Samples Inclusive Samples % Exclusive Samples % apply_slice 8.997 468 62,23 3,24 _PyObject_GetItem 6.257 400 43,28 2,77 memory_subscript 5.857 1.051 40,51 7,27 _PyMemoryView_FromBuffer 2.642 455 18,27 3,15 memory_dealloc 1.572 297 10,87 2,05 _PyObject_Malloc 1.374 1.374 9,50 9,50 __PyObject_GC_New 1.256 236 8,69 1,63 _PySlice_New 1.211 333 8,38 2,30 slice_dealloc 1.061 769 7,34 5,32 __PyObject_GC_Malloc 1.022 293 7,07 2,03 bytearray_getbuffer 987 354 6,83 2,45 dup_buffer 932 932 6,45 6,45 Function Name Inclusive Samples Exclusive Samples Inclusive Samples % Exclusive Samples % apply_slice 3.888 502 48,44 6,25 _PySequence_GetSlice 3.039 350 37,86 4,36 string_slice 2.689 281 33,50 3,50 _PyString_FromStringAndSize 2.409 575 30,01 7,16 [MSVCR90.dll] 1.413 1.407 17,61 17,53 string_dealloc 467 150 5,82 1,87 _PyObject_Malloc 379 379 4,72 4,72 _PyObject_Free 378 378 4,71 4,71 __PyEval_SliceIndex 347 347 4,32 4,32 -----Original Message----- From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org] On Behalf Of Kristján Valur Jónsson Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 20:00 To: Antoine Pitrou; python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] new buffer in python2.7 Ah, well in 2.7 you don't have the luxury of a bytes object. A str() would be similar in 2.7 Anyway, isn't the "bytes" object immutable? In that case, it is not a useful target for a sock.recv_into() call. Calling getbuffer on a bytearray or a bytes object should be really cheap, so I still don't accept this as a matter of fact situation. Btw, going to 3.2 isn't a real option for us any time soon. A lot of companies probably find themselves in a similar situation. This is why I spend so much effort applying some love to 2.7. Most of the stuff I locally do to 2.7 I then contribute to python as 3.2 patches. Someday they'll get backported, no doubt :) K -----Original Message----- From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames....@python.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Pitrou Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 19:16 To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] new buffer in python2.7 > >Here are micro-benchmarks under 3.2: > > > $ ./python -m timeit -s "x = b'x'*10000" "x[:100]" > > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.134 usec per loop $ ./python -m timeit > > -s "x = memoryview(b'x'*10000)" "x[:100]" > > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.151 usec per loop > > That's weird. The greedy slice needs two memory allocations. One for > the ByteArray object itself, one for its cargo. In total, more that > 100 bytes. In contrast, creating the MemoryView object requires only > one allocation of a few dozen bytes. It's not a bytearray object, it's a bytes object. It requires only a single allocation since the data is allocated inline. The memoryview object must also call getbuffer() again on the original object. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org<mailto:Python-Dev@python.org> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/kristjan%40ccpgames.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org<mailto:Python-Dev@python.org> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/kristjan%40ccpgames.com
_______________________________________________ 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
