On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:55:25 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Perhaps it's time for me to take a different approach. Since I can't
> call timeit, and I can't inherit from it (same problem with state being
> shared between instances), perhaps I should write my own timer.
>
>
> import timeit
> import gc
> import itertools
>
> def timeit2(func, args=[], kwargs={}, it=None,
> timer=timeit.default_timer):
> if it is None: it = itertools.repeat(None, timeit.default_number)
> save_gc = gc.isenabled()
> gc.disable()
> try:
> start = timer()
> for counter in it:
> func(*args, **kwargs)
> end = timer()
> finally:
> if save_gc:
> gc.enable()
> return end - start
I've done some comparisons, and the times reported by this function are
consistently almost double that of times reported by timeit.
Now, I don't expect that my code and the timeit code should have the same
overhead, and I realise that the variability of timer results is large.
But I'm quite surprised that this seems to have so much more overhead.
Can anyone offer some advice?
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
