On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> You should also try the master branch of simplejson, the
>> _pypy_speedups branch is not necessarily better (which is why it is
>> not master).
>
> You should also look at https:/
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> You should also try the master branch of simplejson, the
> _pypy_speedups branch is not necessarily better (which is why it is
> not master).
You should also look at https://bugs.pypy.org/issue866 for various patches.
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 201
You should also try the master branch of simplejson, the
_pypy_speedups branch is not necessarily better (which is why it is
not master).
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Kaniaris wrote:
> I did some testing to see where we stand on JSON. The pypy is from
> the trunk and the simplejson u
I did some testing to see where we stand on JSON. The pypy is from
the trunk and the simplejson used with pypy is the _pypy_speedups
branch. The speedups make pypy about 2x faster on dumps than with the
stdlib JSON module, slightly slower with loads, but up to ten times
slower than cpython with s
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> simplejson would be a good target for changes that would not be easy
> to implement on top of the stdlib json. I'd be happy to accept any
> contributions. I failed to make big differences in performance when I
> tried at PyCon (at least that
simplejson would be a good target for changes that would not be easy
to implement on top of the stdlib json. I'd be happy to accept any
contributions. I failed to make big differences in performance when I
tried at PyCon (at least that didn't regress performance for some
people). The other things I
But don't people who need better json performance use simplejson
explicitly instead of using the standard library's json?
Regards,
Zooko
___
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>> So while I agree that ideally, JIT could handle whatever it has, but
>> maybe json is an example good enough to warrant changes.
>
> Yes, I agree in theory. (Didn't l
Hi Maciej,
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> So while I agree that ideally, JIT could handle whatever it has, but
> maybe json is an example good enough to warrant changes.
Yes, I agree in theory. (Didn't look in detail at the proposed
patches.) Alternatively, couldn
In a message of Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:47:33 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski writes:
>Hello.
>
>I would like to raise the topic of modifying standard library for
>performance reasons in *some* places. I know the policy so far is to
>avoid modifications as much as possible and in general I agree. For
>exampl
Hello.
I would like to raise the topic of modifying standard library for
performance reasons in *some* places. I know the policy so far is to
avoid modifications as much as possible and in general I agree. For
example the changes justinpeel made to bz2 (or tarfile? please remind
me about details)
11 matches
Mail list logo
