RE: Psycho question

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Delaney, Timothy (Tim)
    #1

    RE: Psycho question

    David C. Ullrich wrote:
    f: 0.0158488750458
    g: 0.0006101131439 21
    h: 0.0020029544830 3
    f: 0.0184948444366
    g: 0.0002570152282 71
    h: 0.0011661052703 9
    I suspect you're hitting the point of diminishing returns with g, and
    any further investigations into optimisation are purely for fun and
    learning ;)

    Tim Delaney
    Tags: None
    • David C. Ullrich
      #2
      Re: Psycho question

      In article <mailman.1256.1 218151260.922.p ython-list@python.org >,
      "Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <tdelaney@avaya .comwrote:
      David C. Ullrich wrote:
      >
      f: 0.0158488750458
      g: 0.0006101131439 21
      h: 0.0020029544830 3
      f: 0.0184948444366
      g: 0.0002570152282 71
      h: 0.0011661052703 9
      >
      I suspect you're hitting the point of diminishing returns with g, and
      any further investigations into optimisation are purely for fun and
      learning ;)
      No doubt. Hadn't meant to get into optimization, at least not
      here, but various people made various comments - when someone
      suggests this or that seems like I should try it.

      Curiously <smug gring is exactly how I'd planned on doing it
      before trying anything. The one thing that puzzles me about
      all the results is why // is so much slower than / inside
      that Psyco loop.
      Tim Delaney
      --
      David C. Ullrich

        Comment

        • John Krukoff
          #3
          Re: Psycho question


          On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:18 -0500, David C. Ullrich wrote:
          Curiously <smug gring is exactly how I'd planned on doing it
          before trying anything. The one thing that puzzles me about
          all the results is why // is so much slower than / inside
          that Psyco loop.
          >
          Tim Delaney
          >
          One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
          it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
          isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
          syntax.

          Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard there's no
          expectation of a python 3.0 compatible version of psyco, either.

          --
          John Krukoff <jkrukoff@ltgc. com>
          Land Title Guarantee Company

            Comment

            • bearophileHUGS@lycos.com
              #4
              Re: Psycho question

              John Krukoff:
              One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
              it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
              isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
              syntax.
              Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard there's no
              expectation of a python 3.0 compatible version of psyco, either.
              But for me on the short term Python 3 is probably more important than
              pypy, and I'd like to keep using Psyco...

              Bye,
              bearophile

                Comment

                • David C. Ullrich
                  #5
                  Re: Psycho question

                  In article
                  <476017db-4872-4cf5-a1cc-b3fc81ecaaf0@f3 6g2000hsa.googl egroups.com>,
                  bearophileHUGS@ lycos.com wrote:
                  John Krukoff:
                  One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
                  it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
                  isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
                  syntax.
                  Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard there's no
                  expectation of a python 3.0 compatible version of psyco, either.
                  >
                  But for me on the short term Python 3 is probably more important than
                  pypy, and I'd like to keep using Psyco...
                  I feel the same way. Maybe someone will do it...

                  (I wonder how much work it would be to make something
                  like Psyco that only accepts a small subset of the language.)
                  Bye,
                  bearophile
                  --
                  David C. Ullrich

                    Comment

                    • Paul Boddie
                      #6
                      Re: Psycho question

                      On 8 Aug, 20:36, John Krukoff <jkruk...@ltgc. comwrote:
                      >
                      One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
                      it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
                      isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
                      syntax.
                      More here on the current state of play with Psyco:

                      http://www.europython.org/Talks%20and%20Themes/Abstracts#53

                      Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard there's no
                      expectation of a python 3.0 compatible version of psyco, either.
                      "I doubt it" is what the presentation referenced above says on the
                      matter.

                      Paul

                        Comment

                        • arigo+google@codespeak.net
                          #7
                          Re: Psycho question

                          On Aug 8, 7:18 pm, "David C. Ullrich" <dullr...@spryn et.comwrote:
                          The one thing that puzzles me about
                          all the results is why // is so much slower than / inside
                          that Psyco loop.
                          Just an oversight. The optimization about '/' between integers
                          was not copied for the case of '//' between integers. Fixed
                          in the svn head :-)


                          Armin

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...