Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> Consider trying:
>
> import sys
> sys.modules["_json"] = 0 # Block the C extension
> import json
>
> in a fresh interpreter.
>
Thanks for the tip. The revised script at
https://gist.github.com/924626
shows more believable numbers vis-à-vis the no-speedups c
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> It's quite likely that I've failed to turn off the stdlib json speedups
> (though
> I attempted to turn them off for both encoding and decoding), which would
> explain the big disparity in the non-speedup case. Perhaps someone with more
> fam
Stefan Behnel behnel.de> writes:
> Is this using the C accelerated version in both cases? What about the pure
> Python versions? Could you provide numbers for both?
What I posted earlier were C-accelerated timings. I'm not sure exactly how to
turn off the speedups for stdlib json. With some ass
> Of course, people might find other workloads which show bigger disparity in
> performance, or might find something in my 3.x port of simplejson which
> invalidates my finding of a 2% difference.
Thanks a lot for doing this research, by the way.
Regards,
Martin
__
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:09:17 +0100
Michael Foord wrote:
> On 17/04/2011 07:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> >> Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
> >> standard library json module.
> > Can you kindly point to that demonstration?
> >
> Hmm... according to a later em
On 17/04/2011 17:05, Michael Foord wrote:
On 17/04/2011 00:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foord wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
Does it actually ne
On 17/04/2011 07:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
standard library json module.
Can you kindly point to that demonstration?
Hmm... according to a later email in this thread it is 350ms vs 250ms
for an 11kb sample. That's a nice
On 17/04/2011 00:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foord wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but
Vinay Sajip, 17.04.2011 12:33:
Antoine Pitrou writes:
Feel free to share your numbers.
I've now got my fork working on Python 3.2 with speedups. According to a
non-scientific simple test:
Python 2.7
==
Python version: 2.7.1+ (r271:86832, Apr 11 2011, 18:05:24)
[GCC 4.5.2]
11.21484375
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:21:32 +0200
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 19:27:
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
> > Vinay Sajip wrote:
> >> Bob made a comment in passing that simplejson (Python) is about as fast as
> >> stdlib json (C extension), on 2.x.
> >
> > I think Bo
Stefan Behnel behnel.de> writes:
> Well, if that is not possible, then the CPython devs will have a hard time
> maintaining the json accelerator module in the long run. I quickly skipped
> through the github version in simplejson, and it truly is some complicated
> piece of code. Not in the se
Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes:
> Feel free to share your numbers.
I've now got my fork working on Python 3.2 with speedups. According to a
non-scientific simple test:
Python 2.7
==
Python version: 2.7.1+ (r271:86832, Apr 11 2011, 18:05:24)
[GCC 4.5.2]
11.21484375 KiB read
Timing si
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 08:22:20AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Matt Billenstein, 17.04.2011 00:47:
> >On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >>On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
> >>Matt Billenstein wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is q
Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 19:27:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
Bob made a comment in passing that simplejson (Python) is about as fast as
stdlib json (C extension), on 2.x.
I think Bob tested with an outdated version of the stdlib json module
(2.6 or 2.7, perhaps
> Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
> standard library json module.
Can you kindly point to that demonstration?
> That sound like *very* worth pursuing (and
> crazy not to pursue). I've had json serialisation be the bottleneck in
> web applications generating s
Matt Billenstein, 17.04.2011 00:47:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decod
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
> Matt Billenstein wrote:
> >
> > Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
> >
> > 250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decoding an 11KB
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foord wrote:
> On 16/04/2011 22:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
> >> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
> >>
> >>> Does it actually need improvement?
> >> I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing
On 16/04/2011 22:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, ju
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
> I can see three possible areas of improvment:
> 1. Bugs: if there are any, they should clearly be fixed. However, JSON
>is a simple format, so the implementation should be able to converge
>to something fairly correct quickly.
> 2. Performance: there
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
>> Does it actually need improvement?
>
> I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
> slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of
> continuous
> improve
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
> Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of continuous
improvement in general...
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
_
> I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
> json. But if the json module is languishing in comparison to simplejson, then
> bringing the code bases closer together may be worthwhile.
Right: *if* the module is languishing. But it's not. It just diverges.
> It m
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> > What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
> > do the ongoing maintenance.
>
> I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
> json.
No, that's not what I'm talking about.
> > I've contributed a couple of patches myself after they were integrated
> > to CPython (they are part of the performance improvements Bob is talking
> > about), but that was exceptional. Backporting a patch to another project
> > with a different directory structure, a slightly different code,
Hi Antoine,
Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes:
> What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
> do the ongoing maintenance.
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json. But if the json module is languishing in comparison to simplejs
On 2011-04-16, at 17:25 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
>> On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Wh
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:04:53 +0200
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> Well, if that is not possible, then the CPython devs will have a hard time
> maintaining the json accelerator module in the long run. I quickly skipped
> through the github version in simplejson, and it truly is some complicated
> pie
On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
>> On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
>> >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 16:19:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
Python 3, it may be better to:
1. Convert the si
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
> On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
> >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >>> What you're proposing doesn't address the question of
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
>>> do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
> > do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
> > maintaining stdlib code, and pyth
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
> do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
> maintaining stdlib code, and python-dev members aren't interested in
> maintaining simplejson (assuming it
Hello Vinay,
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
> simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
> Python 3, it may be better to:
>
> 1. Convert the simplejson
Sandro Tosi gmail.com> writes:
> Luckily, upstream is receptive for patches, so part of the job is to
> forward patches written for cpython not already in the upstream code.
Further to my earlier response to your post, I should mention that my fork of
simplejson at
https://github.com/vsajip/sim
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein wrote:
>
> Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
>
> http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
>
> 250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decoding an 11KB json object 1000 times...
This doesn't have much value if you don't say which
Sandro Tosi gmail.com> writes:
> The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
> patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
> normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
> 2.1.13 .
I think you mean 2.1.3?
> Their 2 roads ha
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 05:03:55PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
> > Bob Ippolito wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou
> >> wrote:
> >
> > Well, here's a crude microbenchmark. I'm
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 05:03:55PM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
> > Bob Ippolito wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou
> >> wrote:
> >
> > Well, here's a crude microbenchmark. I'm
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
>> >> On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:27:04 -0700
Bob Ippolito wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
> >> On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the cha
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
>> On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
>> >> > will mostly be about API (indentation, object convers
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 14:18 -0700, Bob Ippolito a écrit :
> On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >>
> >> > Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
> >> > will mostly be about API (indentation, object conversion, etc)
> >> > and optimization. I presume the core parsing
On Friday, April 15, 2011, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> > Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
>> > will mostly be about API (indentation, object conversion, etc)
>> > and optimization. I presume the core parsing logic won't
>> > be changing much.
>>
>> Actually the core parsing logic
>
> > Since the JSON spec is set in stone, the changes
> > will mostly be about API (indentation, object conversion, etc)
> > and optimization. I presume the core parsing logic won't
> > be changing much.
>
> Actually the core parsing logic is very different (and MUCH faster),
Are you talking a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>> The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
>> patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
>> normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while ups
On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
> patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
> normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
> 2.1.13 .
>
> Their 2 roads had dive
> - what are we going to do in the long run? how can we assure we'll be
> having a healthy collaboration with upsteam? f.e. in case a bug is
> reported (and later on fixed) in cpython? is there a policy for
> projects present in cpython and also maintained elsewhere?
>
> At the end: do you have so
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:22:27 +0200
Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
> But how am I going to do this? let's do a brain-dump:
IMHO, you should compute the diff between 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 and try to
apply it to the CPython source tree (you'll probably have to change the
file paths).
> - what are we going to do i
Hi all,
it all started with issue10019.
The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
2.1.13 .
Their 2 roads had diverged a lot, and since
51 matches
Mail list logo
