Grant Edwards wrote:
>> You can get better resolution by using time.clock() instead of
>> time.time().
>
> Oh really? When I do it, time.clock() is worse:
on Unix, time.clock() is a tick counter; if your process is running when the
tick
interrupt arrives, the internal counter value is increment
On 2006-06-28, Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > simplest way:
> >
> > t0 = time.time()
>
> You can get better resolution by using time.clock() instead of
> time.time().
Oh really? When I do it, time.clock() is worse:
---
On 28.06.2006 10:01, Girish Sahani wrote:
> Sorry for spamming again, but please also enlighten me with some way to
> time a function i.e. to find out how much time each function takes for
> execution in a big program.
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can anyone tell me the simplest way to do it (some code snipp
Pete Forman wrote:
> > t0 = time.time()
>
> You can get better resolution by using time.clock() instead of
> time.time().
depends on the platform, and whether you want wall time or process time.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> simplest way:
>
> t0 = time.time()
You can get better resolution by using time.clock() instead of
time.time().
--
Pete Forman-./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
WesternGeco -./\.- by myself and does no
Sorry for spamming again, but please also enlighten me with some way to
time a function i.e. to find out how much time each function takes for
execution in a big program.
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone tell me the simplest way to do it (some code snippet that
> could be included in the program's main f
Girish Sahani wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the simplest way to do it (some code snippet that
> could be included in the program's main function) ??
simplest way:
t0 = time.time()
main()
print time.time() - t0, "seconds"
(assuming that you want to measure wall time, and that your prog
