Hi Victor,

On 2 June 2016 at 03:19, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:

5 timeit output ("1000000 loops, best of 3: ... per loop"):

• 0.247 usec
• 0.252 usec
• 0.247 usec
• 0.251 usec
• 0.251 usec

5 perf.timeit outputs ("Average: 25 runs x 3 samples x 10^6 loops: ..."):

• 250 ns +- 3 ns
• 250 ns +- 3 ns
• 251 ns +- 3 ns
• 251 ns +- 4 ns
• 251 ns +- 3 ns

Looks good. IMHO the important bit is that timeit is simple to use, readily available, and gives just a number, which makes it very attractive for people. Your output would achieve the same result (with the +- added, which is fine) assuming that it eventually replaces timeit in the standard library.

I know there are many good reasons for why getting just a single number is not enough, but I'd say that we still need to achieve the best practical results given that constrain. The results you posted above seem to show that perf.timeit is better than timeit at doing that, and I believe that it's a great step forward.

A bientôt,

Armin.