future multi-threading for-loops

castironpi at gmail.com castironpi at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 07:37:25 CET 2008


On Feb 5, 12:26 am, Gabriel Genellina <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> On 5 feb, 03:46, castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Some timing stats: On Windows XP, Python 3.0a2.
>
> > [timing code, 10,000 calls]
> > [ f( X ) ]: 0.0210021106034
> > [ start_new_thread( f, X ) ]: 1.15759908033
> > [ Thread( f, X ).start() ]: 1.85400099733
> > [ Thread( f, X ).start and .join() ]: 1.93716743329
>
> > Are threads an OS bottleneck?
>
> I don't understand your threading issues, but I would not use 3.0a2
> for benchmarking anything (except benchmarking Python 3.0 itself).
> AFAIK the developers are first trying to get it right and stable;
> speed issues will be addressed later.
>
> --
> Gabriel Genellina

Multi-threaded control flow is a worthwhile priority.



More information about the Python-list mailing list