DasIch wrote: > Given those facts I think including pybench is a mistake. It does not > allow for a fair or meaningful comparison between implementations > which is one of the things the suite is supposed to be used for in the > future. > > This easily leads to misinterpretation of the results from this > particular benchmark and it negatively affects the performance data as > a whole. > > The same applies to several Unladen Swallow microbenchmarks such as > bm_call_method_*, bm_call_simple and bm_unpack_sequence.
I don't think we should exclude any implementation specific benchmarks from a common suite. They will not necessarily allow for comparisons between implementations, but will provide important information about the progress made in optimizing a particular implementation. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Apr 29 2011) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ 2011-06-20: EuroPython 2011, Florence, Italy 52 days to go ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ _______________________________________________ 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