Neal Norwitz wrote: > I've profiled various combinations. Here are the various results > normalized doing xrange(0, 1e6, 1): > > Run on all integer (32-bit) values for start, step, end: > C xrange and iter: 1 > Py xrange w/C iter: 1
in real life, loops are a lot shorter than that. if you take that into account, you don't even have to run the benchmark to realize that calling a Python function and checking the arguments before calling a C function takes more time than calling a C function. even if you skip the "check the arguments" part, you take a 5% hit: > timeit -s"def myxrange(a,xrange=xrange): return xrange (a)" "for i in myxrange(100): pass" 100000 loops, best of 3: 5.28 usec per loop > timeit "for i in xrange(100): pass" 100000 loops, best of 3: 4.98 usec per loop > timeit -s"def myxrange(a,b=None,c=None,xrange=xrange): return xrange(a,b,c)" "for i in myxrange(0,100,1): pass" 100000 loops, best of 3: 5.58 usec per loop > timeit "for i in xrange(0,100,1): pass" 100000 loops, best of 3: 5.27 usec per loop I doubt adding more code to the myxrange function will speed it up... </F> _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
