On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 16:51, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
>
>> So, if there is going to be some baseline performance target I need to
>> hit to make people happy I would prefer to know what that (real-world)
>> benchmark is and what the performance target is going to be on a non-debug
>> build. And if people are not worried about the performance then I'm happy
>> with that as well. =)
>>
>
> One thing I'm a bit worried about is repeated imports, especially ones
> that are inside frequently-called functions.  In today's versions of
> Python, this is a performance win for "command-line tool platform" systems
> like Mercurial and PEAK, where you want to delay importing as long as
> possible, in case the code that needs the import is never called at all...
>  but, if it *is* used, you may still need to use it a lot of times.
>
> When writing that kind of code, I usually just unconditionally import
> inside the function, because the C code check for an already-imported
> module is faster than the Python "if" statement I'd have to clutter up my
> otherwise-clean function with.
>
> So, in addition to the things other people have mentioned as performance
> targets, I'd like to keep the slowdown factor low for this type of scenario
> as well.  Specifically, the slowdown shouldn't be so much as to motivate
> lazy importers like Mercurial and PEAK to need to rewrite in-function
> imports to do the already-imported check ourselves.  ;-)
>
> (Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen Mercurial's delayed/dynamic import
> code, so I can't say for 100% sure if they'd be affected the same way.)
>

IOW you want the sys.modules case fast, which I will never be able to match
compared to C code since that is pure execution with no I/O.
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to