Fredrik Lundh wrote:
mal wrote:
UnicodeMappings: 1631.65 ms 90.65 us +42.76% UnicodePredicates: 1762.10 ms 7.83 us +15.99% UnicodeProperties: 1410.80 ms 7.05 us +19.57% UnicodeSlicing: 1366.20 ms 7.81 us +19.23%
Unicode mappings and other Unicode database related methods show the effect of the compression of the Unicode database -- a clear space/speed tradeoff.
umm. the tests don't seem to test the "\N{name}" escapes, so the only thing that has changed in 2.1 is the "decomposition" method (used in the UnicodeProperties test).
The mappings figure surprised me too: the code has not changed, but the unicodetype_db.h look different. Don't know how this affects performance though. The differences could also be explained by a increase in Unicode object creation time (the concatenation is also a lot slower), so perhaps that's where we should look...
are you sure you're comparing against 2.0 final?
Yes... after a check of the Makefile I found that I had compiled Python 2.0 with -O3 and 2.1a1 with -O2 -- perhaps this makes a difference w/r to inlining of code. I'll recompile and rerun the benchmark. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/