[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-10-01 Thread Steve Dower
Steve Dower added the comment: I don't really care, since you're comparing multiple unsupported technologies, but my guess is that the egg install injects the library much earlier on sys.path, which avoids most of the relatively expensive file system scan. --

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-10-01 Thread Safihre
Safihre added the comment: If you know the problem, would you also know the solution? What is the difference in how they generate sys.path entries and how does this affect performance during execution of the module function? Just want to understand what is going on :) -- _

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-30 Thread Steve Dower
Steve Dower added the comment: The difference is on startup in how they generate sys.path entries. Skip the install step and directly run the library in a clean virtual environment, so that no .pth or .egg files are in use. If the difference still occurs, show that it also occurs on a recent

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-30 Thread Safihre
Safihre added the comment: Very good question! 5000 times via imp.load_dynamic: yEnc C New took 5870 ms yEnc C New took 5878 ms yEnc C New took 5835 ms 5000 times via "pip: having the .pyd in site-packages" yEnc C New took 6489 ms yEnc C New took 6369 ms

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-30 Thread Stefan Krah
Stefan Krah added the comment: Does the difference stay at 10-15% if you run it 5 times or is it a one time cost of around 100 ms? -- nosy: +skrah ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-29 Thread Safihre
Change by Safihre : -- resolution: third party -> ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mai

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-29 Thread Safihre
Safihre added the comment: No, the difference is not wheel vs setuptools. They both generate the identical pyd file. The difference is python: if the module is loaded by just being available on the path or if the module is loaded via imp.load_dynamic I understand if it's closed because it's

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-29 Thread Steve Dower
Steve Dower added the comment: The only difference between your two tests is the install tool, and neither setuptools nor wheel bugs are tracked here. -- resolution: -> third party stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-29 Thread Terry J. Reedy
Terry J. Reedy added the comment: This issue is more likely to get attention if there is a difference in 3.6, or even better, 3.7. -- nosy: +terry.reedy ___ Python tracker ___

[issue31555] Windows pyd slower when not loaded via load_dynamic

2017-09-22 Thread S Safihre
New submission from S Safihre: I have a Python 2.7 C-extension that was made for performance, however, I noticed something strange on Windows: When I run locally python setup.py install and it installs it the "egg" way, the performance of calling the function in the module 500x in a loop is: