On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:02:17 +1100
> Matt Joiner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's my impression that the readinto method does not fully support the
>> buffer interface I was expecting. I've never had cause to use it until
>> now. I've created a question on SO that describes my confusion:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/q/8263899/149482
>
> Just use a memoryview and slice it:
>
> b = bytearray(...)
> m = memoryview(b)
> n = f.readinto(m[some_offset:])
Cheers, this seems to be what I wanted. Unfortunately it doesn't
perform noticeably better if I do this.
Eli, the use pattern I was referring to is when you read in chunks,
and and append to a running buffer. Presumably if you know in advance
the size of the data, you can readinto directly to a region of a
bytearray. There by avoiding having to allocate a temporary buffer for
the read, and creating a new buffer containing the running buffer,
plus the new.
Strangely, I find that your readandcopy is faster at this, but not by
much, than readinto. Here's the code, it's a bit explicit, but then so
was the original:
BUFSIZE = 0x10000
def justread():
# Just read a file's contents into a string/bytes object
f = open(FILENAME, 'rb')
s = b''
while True:
b = f.read(BUFSIZE)
if not b:
break
s += b
def readandcopy():
# Read a file's contents and copy them into a bytearray.
# An extra copy is done here.
f = open(FILENAME, 'rb')
s = bytearray()
while True:
b = f.read(BUFSIZE)
if not b:
break
s += b
def readinto():
# Read a file's contents directly into a bytearray,
# hopefully employing its buffer interface
f = open(FILENAME, 'rb')
s = bytearray(os.path.getsize(FILENAME))
o = 0
while True:
b = f.readinto(memoryview(s)[o:o+BUFSIZE])
if not b:
break
o += b
And the timings:
$ python3 -O -m timeit 'import fileread_bytearray'
'fileread_bytearray.justread()'
10 loops, best of 3: 298 msec per loop
$ python3 -O -m timeit 'import fileread_bytearray'
'fileread_bytearray.readandcopy()'
100 loops, best of 3: 9.22 msec per loop
$ python3 -O -m timeit 'import fileread_bytearray'
'fileread_bytearray.readinto()'
100 loops, best of 3: 9.31 msec per loop
The file was 10MB. I expected readinto to perform much better than
readandcopy. I expected readandcopy to perform slightly better than
justread. This clearly isn't the case.
>
>> Also I saw some comments on "top-posting" am I guilty of this?
If tehre's a magical option in gmail someone knows about, please tell.
>
> Kind of :)
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/anacrolix%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
