Steve Holden wrote:
Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:57:54 -0500, Jim Garrison wrote:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
3.1a1 is out and I believe it has the io improvements.
Massive ones, too. It'd be interesting to see your results on the alpha.
On
Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:57:54 -0500, Jim Garrison wrote:
>> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>> Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
3.1a1 is out and I believe it has the io improvements.
>>>
>>> Massive ones, too. It'd be interesting to see your results on the alpha.
>>
>> On
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:57:54 -0500, Jim Garrison wrote:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
3.1a1 is out and I believe it has the io improvements.
Massive ones, too. It'd be interesting to see your results on the alpha.
On 3.1a1 the unpickle step takes 2.4 seconds, an 1
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
3.1a1 is out and I believe it has the io improvements.
Massive ones, too. It'd be interesting to see your results on the alpha.
On 3.1a1 the unpickle step takes 2.4 seconds, an 1875% improvement.
Thanks.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailm
Terry Reedy udel.edu> writes:
>
> 3.1a1 is out and I believe it has the io improvements.
Massive ones, too. It'd be interesting to see your results on the alpha.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Carl Banks wrote:
The slow performance is most likely due to the poor performance of
Python 3's IO, which is caused by (among other things) bad buffering
strategy. It's a Python 3 growing pain, and is being rewritten.
Python 3.1 should be must faster but it's not been released yet.
3.1a1 is o
Carl Banks:
> The slow performance is most likely due to the poor performance of
> Python 3's IO, which is caused by [...]
My suggestion for the Original Poster is just to try using Python 2.x,
if possible :-)
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mar 20, 5:26 pm, Jim Garrison wrote:
> John Machin wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 9:25 am, Jim Garrison wrote:
> >> I'm converting a Perl system to Python, and have run into a severe
> >> performance problem with pickle.
>
> >> One facet of the system involves scanning and loading into memory a
> >> co
Jim Garrison wrote:
> John Machin wrote:
[snip]
>> Have you considered using cPickle instead of pickle?
>> Have you considered using *ickle.dump(..., protocol=-1) ?
>
> I'm using Python 3 on Windows (Server 2003). According to the docs
>
>"The pickle module has an transparent optimizer (_pic
John Machin wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:25 am, Jim Garrison wrote:
>> I'm converting a Perl system to Python, and have run into a severe
>> performance problem with pickle.
>>
>> One facet of the system involves scanning and loading into memory a
>> couple of parallel directory trees containing OTO 10^4
On Mar 21, 9:25 am, Jim Garrison wrote:
> I'm converting a Perl system to Python, and have run into a severe
> performance problem with pickle.
>
> One facet of the system involves scanning and loading into memory a
> couple of parallel directory trees containing OTO 10^4 files. The
> trees don't
On Mar 21, 9:25 am, Jim Garrison wrote:
> I'm converting a Perl system to Python, and have run into a severe
> performance problem with pickle.
>
> One facet of the system involves scanning and loading into memory a
> couple of parallel directory trees containing OTO 10^4 files. The
> trees don't
I'm converting a Perl system to Python, and have run into a severe
performance problem with pickle.
One facet of the system involves scanning and loading into memory a
couple of parallel directory trees containing OTO 10^4 files. The
trees don't change during development/testing and the scan tak
13 matches
Mail list logo
