Dale Visser added the comment:
I've learned a lot about the performance trade-offs of generator expressions.
The only way of shortening this code (readability is subjective) that I've
found not to negatively impact performance is this:
def filter(self, record):
rv = True
Dale Visser added the comment:
FWIW, when I tried this instead, I got 21 to 22 msec per 1000 log messages
(still a 5-10% performance hit):
def filter(self, record):
rv = True
if self.filters:
rv = all(getattr(f, 'filter', f)(record) for f in self.filters)
return rv
I
Dale Visser added the comment:
Adding the patch file associated with GitHub pull request #13683, as well as
the performance test I just reported.
--
Added file: https://bugs.python.org/file48383/pr13683.diff
___
Python tracker
<ht
Dale Visser added the comment:
Correction on that example of running the test script:
./python test_filter_perf.py all 100
I simply prepended this with the Linux `time` command for measuring.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.
Dale Visser added the comment:
It is with great surprise and sadness that I report that I found that
performance measurements don't support merging this change. I'm attaching my
performance test script. I ran it with/without the logging filters for 100
iterations, e.g., ./python all
Dale Visser added the comment:
Great! My PR now uses getattr as @zach.ware has suggested.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37101>
___
___
Change by Dale Visser :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +13570
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/13683
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
New submission from Dale Visser :
Alternative version of Filterer.filter(...) would look like this, which takes
advantage of efficient Python 3.x built-ins, and is immediately understandable:
def _filter_callable(filter):
return filter.filter if hasattr(filter, 'filter') else filter
def
