On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 8:25 PM Gisle Vanem wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > BTW, I just noticed something. The path you're using for testing
> > purposes is "e:/net". Is that network-attached or local? If it's a
> > remote mount of some sort, then that will make a HUGE difference
>
> No. Di
Chris Angelico wrote:
BTW, I just noticed something. The path you're using for testing
purposes is "e:/net". Is that network-attached or local? If it's a
remote mount of some sort, then that will make a HUGE difference
No. Did the word 'net' make you think that :-) It's a local
FAT32 partition
On 29/07/2020 11.43, Gisle Vanem wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>>> Has anybody noticed the speed of 'glob()' has
>>> decreased somewhere between v3.6 and v3.10.
>>>
>>> I got these results:
>>> Python 3.6.5:
>>> 1st run: 0.14694
>>> 2nd run: 0.09506 <- *always* the fastest
>>>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 7:44 PM Gisle Vanem wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> >> Has anybody noticed the speed of 'glob()' has
> >> decreased somewhere between v3.6 and v3.10.
> >>
> >> I got these results:
> >> Python 3.6.5:
> >> 1st run: 0.14694
> >> 2nd run: 0.09506 <- *alw
Chris Angelico wrote:
Has anybody noticed the speed of 'glob()' has
decreased somewhere between v3.6 and v3.10.
I got these results:
Python 3.6.5:
1st run: 0.14694
2nd run: 0.09506 <- *always* the fastest
Python 3.7.7:<- from Nuget
1st run: 0.12440
2nd
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:27 PM Gisle Vanem wrote:
>
> Has anybody noticed the speed of 'glob()' has
> decreased somewhere between v3.6 and v3.10.
>
> I got these results:
>Python 3.6.5:
> 1st run: 0.14694
> 2nd run: 0.09506 <- *always* the fastest
>Python 3.7.7:<- from
