Louis Huemiller <lhuem...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Each of the Python runs mentioned in the initial post took around 4 hours to execute. Although not as accurate, the issue can be demonstrated in less than 5 minutes through the use of: # If needed use the following to install Python3.8.0rc1 $ apt-get update $ sudo apt-get upgrade $ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:deadsnakes/ppa $ sudo apt update $ sudo apt install python3.8 # Use Python3.7 to produce baseline. $ python3.7 permutations2x2 --max_depth 6 | egrep "^# Total_Time" # Perform Python3.8.0rc1 execution python3.8 permutations2x2 --max_depth 6 | egrep "^# Total_Time" When I did this on my server the Python3.7 execution produced: # Total_Time: 62.46 While the Python3.8.0rc1 execution produced: # Total_Time: 79.72 By running the program with "--max_depth 6" specified, the program only traversed through permutations that are up to 6 moves from the initial position. Although much less than running through an unlimited number of moves, the above run still showed the Python3.8.0rc1 run as 26.7% ((79.72 - 62.46) / 62.46) slower than the Python3.7 execution. Which is close to the 28.6% reduction in performance seen from runs with unlimited depth of moves. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38477> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
