On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> The site module has to process any .pth files in the site-packages, > >> but apart from that, I think the actual amount of stuff in > >> site-packages should be irrelevant. > > > > Irrelevant to what? More stuff in site slowing things down? Are .pth's > > not correlated with more stuff in site-packages? Aren't they actually a > > thing In site? > > Yes, but I just don't expect the .pth files to grow that fast. I've > got something like 30 packages in my site-packages and only 6 .pth > files, and most of those are one-liners. > It's not the Lines of Code, it's the track to track seeks. > Right now this all seems highly speculative to me. I think it might > be informative, either to you or to me, to do an actual timing test. > Why don't you try setting up two side-by-side installations of Python, > one with all the site-packages cruft, and one trimmed down to only > what you think should be in there, and see if you can measure a real > difference in startup time? > In the original stackoverflow thread I mentioned, there's a speed comparison. It's possible they were seeing a cache effect, though it didn't really sound like it.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
