[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset db5f2b74e369 by Ezio Melotti in branch 'default': #18020: improve html.escape speed by an order of magnitude. Patch by Matt Bryant. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/db5f2b74e369 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Ezio Melotti added the comment: Fixed, thanks for the report and the patch! -- resolution: - fixed stage: patch review - committed/rejected status: open - closed versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.2, Python 3.3 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com: -- assignee: - ezio.melotti stage: - patch review ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
A.M. Kuchling added the comment: Matt's patch looks good to me. It removes two module-level dicts, but they're marked as internal, so that's OK. There's already a test case that exercises html.escape(), so I don't think any additional tests are needed. -- nosy: +akuchling ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Changes by Jakub Wilk jw...@jwilk.net: -- nosy: +jwilk ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
New submission from Florent Xicluna: I noticed the convenient ``html.escape`` in Python 3.2 and ``cgi.escape`` is marked as deprecated. However, the former is an order of magnitude slower than the latter. $ python3 --version Python 3.3.2 With html.escape: $ python3 -m timeit -s from html import escape as html; from cgi import escape; s = repr(copyright) h = html(s) 1 loops, best of 3: 48.7 usec per loop $ python3 -m timeit -s from html import escape as html; from cgi import escape; s = repr(copyright) * 19 h = html(s) 1000 loops, best of 3: 898 usec per loop With cgi.escape: $ python3 -m timeit -s from html import escape as html; from cgi import escape; s = repr(copyright) h = escape(s) 10 loops, best of 3: 7.42 usec per loop $ python3 -m timeit -s from html import escape as html; from cgi import escape; s = repr(copyright) * 19 h = escape(s) 1 loops, best of 3: 21.5 usec per loop Since this kind of function is called frequently in template engines, it makes a difference. Of course C replacements are available on PyPI: MarkupSafe or Webext But it would be nice to restore the performance of cgi.escape with a pragmatic `.replace(` approach. -- components: Library (Lib) messages: 189641 nosy: ezio.melotti, flox, orsenthil priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape type: performance versions: Python 3.2, Python 3.3 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Graham Dumpleton added the comment: Importing the cgi module the first time even in Python 2.X was always very expensive. I would suggest you redo the test using timing done inside of the script after modules have been imported so as to properly separate module import time in both cases from execution time of the specific function. -- nosy: +grahamd ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Florent Xicluna added the comment: I would suggest you redo the test using timing done inside of the script after modules have been imported. The -s switch takes care of this. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Graham Dumpleton added the comment: Whoops. Missed the quoting. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape
Matt Bryant added the comment: I did a few more tests and am seeing the same speed differences Florent noticed. It seems reasonable to use .replace() instead, as it does the same thing significantly faster. I've attached a patch doing just this. -- keywords: +patch nosy: +Teh Matt Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file30325/htmlescape.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
