2016-11-07 20:20 GMT+01:00 Guido van Rossum :
> Re:
> https://speed.python.org/timeline/#/?exe=4&ben=python_startup&env=1&revs=50&equid=off&quarts=on&extr=on
>
> That's suspiciously close to the core sprint. Since the -S time stayed
> roughly the same I suspect that either a new module was added to
Re:
https://speed.python.org/timeline/#/?exe=4&ben=python_startup&env=1&revs=50&equid=off&quarts=on&extr=on
That's suspiciously close to the core sprint. Since the -S time stayed
roughly the same I suspect that either a new module was added to the
startup sequence or one of the (too many) modules
On 05.11.2016 10:56, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hi Victor,
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:10 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
Raw results of Python 3.6 compared to Python 2.7:
That's interesting, but I would be personally more interested in
a performance comparison of 3.5 and 3.6, to know if anything
inte
Hi Victor,
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:10 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Raw results of Python 3.6 compared to Python 2.7:
That's interesting, but I would be personally more interested in
a performance comparison of 3.5 and 3.6, to know if anything
interesting (or worrying :-)) has happened ther
The nice thing with benchmarks is that you can always take a subset of
numbers to prove something :-) Another subset where Python 3.6 is
faster:
"Python 3.6 is between 12% (1.14x) and 97% (32x) FASTER than Python
2.7 in the following benchmarks:"
https://twitter.com/VictorStinner/status/7945252896
(Re-post without the two attached files of 100 KB each.)
Hi,
You may know that I'm working on benchmarks. I regenerated all
benchmark results of speed.python.org using performance 0.3.2
(benchmark suite). I started to analyze results.
All results are available online on the website:
https://
