[Python-ideas] Interrogate alternate namespace keyword and concept
ilya.nikokoshev at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 21:51:11 CEST 2009
Thanks for code tips! I appreciate them.
Ok, I kind of not sure I correctly remember why this topic was raised,
so let me remember.
You said that using a separate function has a performance hit. The
purpose of my program was to establish that timing of
function interrogate() == statement interrogate + compile time
It doesn't appear to me that you dispute this claim, so let's accept
it. Since a typical program shouldn't compile lots of code snippets
(not in number of millions certainly) this means the performance of
function and statement is the same for out purposes. I believe this
closes performance question.
> min(alist) is a more-direct, simpler, faster, easier to read way of
> calculating sorted(alist).
> You're muddying the water by including a for-loop and call to range()
> inside the code snippet being tested. We're trying to compare your
> function interrogate(test, 'value += 1') with the standard call to
> test.value += 1. Why include the time required to generate a range()
> object, and iterate over it ten times, as part of the code snippet? All
> that does is mix up the time required to execute common code and the
> time required to execute the code we care about.
> If it's not obvious why your approach is flawed, consider this extreme
> Timer("time.sleep(1000); interrogate(test, 'value += 1')", ...)
> Timer("time.sleep(1000); test.value += 1", ...)
> The differences in speed between the interrogate call (using exec) and
> the direct access to test.value will be swamped by the time used by the
> common code.
> A more accurate measurement is to remove the "for i in..." part from
> command, and increase the number=1000 argument to Timer.repeat() to
>> inc5 = compile_command(command)
> This is an unfair test. We're comparing directly accessing test.value
> versus indirectly accessing test.value using exec. Regardless of
> whether the caller compiles the statement manually before passing it to
> exec, or just passes it to exec to compile it automatically, the cost
> of that compilation has to be payed. Pulling that outside of the timing
> code just hides the true cost.
> Pre-compiling before passing to exec is a good optimization for the
> cases where you need to exec the same code snippet over and over again.
> If you want to execute "for i in range(1000): exec(s)" then it makes
> sense to pull out the compilation of s outside of the loop. But
> generally when timing code snippets, the only purpose of the loop is to
> minimize errors and give more accurate results, so pulling out the
> compilation just hides some of the real cost.
>> timing("interrogate(test, command)")
>> timing(command.replace('value', 'test.value'))
>> timing("interrogate(test, inc5)")
> Where does the 15 come from?
>> 'interrogate(test, command)' -> 0.0908 ms
>> # test.value = 30015
>> '\nfor i in range(10):\n test.value += 1\n' -> 0.00408 ms
>> # test.value = 60015
>> 'interrogate(test, inc5)' -> 0.00469 ms
>> # test.value = 90015
>> so interrogate() with additional precompiling introduces very little
> Only because you're ignoring the overhead of pre-compiling. A more
> accurate test would be:
> timing("inc5 = compile_command(command); interrogate(test, inc5)")
>> Though I agree it's inconvenient to write functions as
> If you think that's inconvenient, just try writing functions as code
> objects without calling compile :)
> Steven D'Aprano
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
More information about the Python-ideas