On 5/12/2014 8:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 13 May 2014 10:19, dw+python-...@hmmz.org wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:22:52PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Why can't Python start as quickly as Perl or Ruby?
On my heavily abused Core 2 Macbook with 9 .pth files, 2.7 drops
from 81ms
Gregory Szorc writes:
But the great many of us still on 2.7 likely won't see a benefit,
correct? How insane would it be for people to do things like pass -S
in the shebang and manually implement the parts of site.py that are
actually needed?
Well, since it probably won't work wink/
On 5/10/2014 2:46 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com
mailto:gregory.sz...@gmail.com a écrit :
Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be 50% slower than Python 2.
Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7
and 3.3. Please
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:22:52PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Why can't Python start as quickly as Perl or Ruby?
On my heavily abused Core 2 Macbook with 9 .pth files, 2.7 drops from
81ms startup to 20ms by specifying -S, which disables site.py.
Oblitering the .pth files immediately knocks
On 13 May 2014 10:19, dw+python-...@hmmz.org wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:22:52PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Why can't Python start as quickly as Perl or Ruby?
On my heavily abused Core 2 Macbook with 9 .pth files, 2.7 drops from
81ms startup to 20ms by specifying -S, which disables
I was investigating speeding up Mercurial's test suite (it runs ~13,000
Python processes) and I believe I've identified CPython
process/interpreter creation and destruction as sources of significant
overhead and thus a concern for any CPython user.
Full details are at [1]. tl;dr 10-18% of CPU
Hello,
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:05:54 -0700
Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com wrote:
I was investigating speeding up Mercurial's test suite (it runs ~13,000
Python processes) and I believe I've identified CPython
process/interpreter creation and destruction as sources of significant
Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com a écrit :
Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be 50% slower than Python 2.
Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7 and 3.3.
Please test 3.4, we made interesting progress on the startup time.
There is still
On May 10, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com a écrit :
Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be 50% slower than Python 2.
Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7 and 3.3.
Please
Yeah, but 200 test in 30 minutes is 9 *seconds* per test -- the Python
startup time is only a tiny fraction of that (20-40 *milliseconds*).
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On May 10, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le
Yes right, sorry I didn’t mean to imply that all that time was spent in the
Python start up time. I’ve personally never actually spent time to figure out
which part of that was slow because getting visibility inside of a
subprocess.Popen is a pain and I’m slowly trying to rewrite our tests to not
11 matches
Mail list logo
