[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2013-04-07 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: I still see a difference between find and rfind, even if the different is low (11%). $ ./python -m timeit -s 's=ABC*33; a=((s+D)*500+s+E); b=s+E' 'a.find(b)' 1 loops, best of 3: 93.6 usec per loop $ ./python -m timeit -s 's=ABC*33; a=(E+s+(D+s)*500);

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2013-04-07 Thread Roundup Robot
Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset c5e2ea9e3aa7 by Victor Stinner in branch 'default': Close #13126: Simplify FASTSEARCH() code to help the compiler to emit more http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c5e2ea9e3aa7 -- nosy: +python-dev resolution: - fixed stage: patch review -

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2012-04-09 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com added the comment: I checked one example on a 32-bit system (you have a 64-bit?)), because I was afraid pessimization because of a lack of registers. str.find() is faster than str.rfind(), but the patch makes it even faster. But I would like to see the

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2012-04-09 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: But I would like to see the script and the results of benchmarking of the 1/2/3/20-character ascii/ucs1/ucs2/ucs4-substring in ascii/ucs1 /ucs2/ucs4-string, in all possible combinations. May be, such benchmark scripts already exist?

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2012-04-09 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com added the comment: stringbench (the tool which produced those results) now exists in Tools/stringbench/stringbench.py. Thank you, yesterday they were not. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2012-04-09 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com added the comment: I used stringbench and self-writen script (see issue13165) for comparison and saw no convincing difference. The difference to str.find does not exceed accidental deviations for other functions which are not affected by the patch.

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2012-04-07 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +storchaka ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13126 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2011-11-16 Thread Florent Xicluna
Changes by Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com: -- priority: low - normal stage: - patch review ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13126 ___

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2011-10-09 Thread Florent Xicluna
Changes by Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +flox ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13126 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue13126] find() slower than rfind()

2011-10-07 Thread Antoine Pitrou
New submission from Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr: With some gcc versions, str.find() is slower than str.rfind(): - 11.22 0.0 s=ABC*33; ((s+D)*500+s+E).find(s+E) (*100) - 4.560.0 s=ABC*33; ((s+D)*500+E+s).find(E+s) (*100) - 6.710.0 s=ABC*33; (s+E) in