Angel Gutierrez wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:44:14 -0700, alex23 wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
In other words, about 20% of the time he measures is the time taken to
print junk to the screen.
Which makes his claim that "all the console outputs have been removed so
that the benchmarking activity is not interfered with by the IO
overheads" somewhat confusing...he didn't notice the output? Wrote it
off as a weird Python side-effect?
Wait... I've just remembered, and a quick test confirms... Python only
prints bare objects if you are running in a interactive shell. Otherwise
output of bare objects is suppressed unless you explicitly call print.
Okay, I guess he is forgiven. False alarm, my bad.
Well.. there must be somthing because this is what I got in a normal script
execution:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ python iter.py
Time per iteration = 357.467989922 microseconds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ vim iter.py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ python iter2.py
Time per iteration = 320.306909084 microseconds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ vim iter2.py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ python iter2.py
Time per iteration = 312.917997837 microseconds
What is the standard deviation on those numbers? What is the confidence
level that they are distinct? In a thread complaining about poor
benchmarking it's disappointing to see crappy test methodology being
used to try and demonstrate flaws in the test.
Kris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
