On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:23, benhoyt <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > AFAIK, the Windows performance counter has long-term accuracy issues, > > so neither is perfect. Preferably we should have a timer with the long- > > term accuracy of time.time and the short-term accuracy of time.clock. > > Thanks for the tip -- yes, I hadn't thought about that, but you're right, > QueryPerformanceCounter (and hence time.clock) veers away from the system > time, and it's non-trivial to fix. See also: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx
This is what http://pypi.python.org/pypi/timer uses, although it doesn't go as far as using the final result of the article, but an implementation from Figure 2, which was "Good Enough" (TM).
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
