[IronPython] pybench results for CPython and IronPython
dinov at exchange.microsoft.com
Tue Apr 24 21:37:25 CEST 2007
I think #2 is the winner here - the synchronized versions of the classes are much slower than just using a simple Monitor. But IronPython's data structures are thread safe and we just use Monitor's for most of them (there are some more tuned classes in the system as well but there aren't too many of those).
From: users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com [users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Arman Bostani [arman at twinsun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:42 AM
To: users at lists.ironpython.com
Subject: Re: [IronPython] pybench results for CPython and IronPython
I assume that IronPython is implemented with thread-safe data structures
(i.e. there's no GIL). If so, then IronPython is at a disadvantage on
single-threaded benchmarks like pybench.
Just for fun, I tested System.Collections.SortedList against its thread
safe (Synchronized) version. The latter was 5 times slower!
In light of this simple test, its possible that 1) IP is very efficient
at implementing thread safety 2) .NET Synchronized collections are
horribly slow 3) my assumption on IP's implementation are wrong.
users mailing list
users at lists.ironpython.com
More information about the Ironpython-users