Hi Tobias,
> On 24/11/2011 16:20, Tobias Quathamer wrote:
>> Am 23.11.2011 03:00, schrieb David Prévot:
>>> Since isoquery has been rewritten in Python, it's a lot slower than it
>>> used to be.
Here is a tiny test you can run, that should only involve isoquery:
time for i in a b c d e f g h i j
Hi Tobias,
On 24/11/2011 16:20, Tobias Quathamer wrote:
> Am 23.11.2011 03:00, schrieb David Prévot:
>> Since isoquery has been rewritten in Python, it's a lot slower than it
>> used to be.
> I've done some profiling now and I couldn't find any bottlenecks which
> could be improved. The most time
Am 23.11.2011 03:00, schrieb David Prévot:
> Since isoquery has been rewritten in Python, it's a lot slower than it
> used to be.
Hi David,
I've done some profiling now and I couldn't find any bottlenecks which
could be improved. The most time for ISO 639-3 takes the call to
lxml.etree.parse, whi
Am 23.11.2011 03:00, schrieb David Prévot:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> Thanks for developing isoquery, it's really useful.
>
> Since isoquery has been rewritten in Python, it's a lot slower than it
> used to be.
Hi David,
thanks for the bug report. I'll look into this and see if I can identify
some bottle
Package: isoquery
Version: 1.5-1
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
Hi Tobias,
Thanks for developing isoquery, it's really useful.
Since isoquery has been rewritten in Python, it's a lot slower than it
used to be. In the Debian website, since www-master has been upgraded to
Squeeze, the build is si
5 matches
Mail list logo
