I wouldn't worry about a small regression on a micro- or mini-benchmark while the overall picture is

Absolutely, I agree is not something to *worry* but I think it makes sense to investigate as
the possible fix may be trivial. Part of the reason I wanted to recompute them was because
the micro-benchmarks published in the What's new of 3.9 were confusing a lot of users that
were thinking if 3.9 was slower.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 15:14, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:

Le 14/10/2020 à 15:16, Pablo Galindo Salgado a écrit :
> Hi!
> I have updated the branch benchmarks in the pyperformance server and now
> they include 3.9. There are
> some benchmarks that are faster but on the other hand some benchmarks
> are substantially slower, pointing
> at a possible performance regression in 3.9 in some aspects. In
> particular some tests like "unpack sequence" are
> almost 20% slower. As there are some other tests were 3.9 is faster, is
> not fair to conclude that 3.9 is slower, but
> this is something we should look into in my opinion.
> You can check these benchmarks I am talking about by:
> * Go here: https://speed.python.org/comparison/
> * In the left bar, select "lto-pgo latest in branch '3.9'" and "lto-pgo
> latest in branch '3.8'"
> * To better read the plot, I would recommend to select a "Normalization"
> to the 3.8 branch (this is in the top part of the page)
>    and to check the "horizontal" checkbox.

Those numbers tell me that it's a wash.  I wouldn't worry about a small
regression on a micro- or mini-benchmark while the overall picture is


python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-leave@python.org
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/WMNBN4LI5W7U5HKPJWQOHGZXK4X3IRHV/
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/