"Frank Millman" <fr...@chagford.com> wrote in message news:lemm11$18r$1...@ger.gmane.org... > Hi all > > I noticed this a little while ago, but dismissed it as a curiosity. On > reflection, I decided to mention it here in case it indicates a problem. > > This is with python 3.3.2. > > C:\>python -m timeit -s "import copy" "copy.copy('a'*1000)" > 100000 loops, best of 3: 6.91 usec per loop > > C:\>python -m timeit -s "import copy" "copy.deepcopy('a'*1000)" > 100000 loops, best of 3: 11.8 usec per loop > > C:\>python -m timeit -s "import copy" "copy.copy(b'a'*1000)" > 10000 loops, best of 3: 79.9 usec per loop > > C:\>python -m timeit -s "import copy" "copy.deepcopy(b'a'*1000)" > 100000 loops, best of 3: 11.7 usec per loop > > As you can see, deepcopying a string is slightly slower than copying it. > > However, deepcopying a byte string is orders of magnitude quicker than > copying it. > > Actually, looking closer, it is the 'copy' that is slow, not the > 'deepcopy' that is quick.. > > Expected, or odd? > > Frank Millman >
Thanks, Ian and Peter, for confirming that this is not expected. I have created an issue on the bug tracker - http://bugs.python.org/issue20791 Frank -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
