[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-07-07 Thread Roundup Robot
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-07-07 Thread Ezio Melotti
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-06-01 Thread Ezio Melotti
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 ___

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-28 Thread A.M. Kuchling
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-25 Thread Jakub Wilk
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-20 Thread Florent Xicluna
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-20 Thread Graham Dumpleton
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-20 Thread Florent Xicluna
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

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-20 Thread Graham Dumpleton
Graham Dumpleton added the comment: Whoops. Missed the quoting. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue18020 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue18020] html.escape 10x slower than cgi.escape

2013-05-20 Thread Matt Bryant
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