Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Python Benchmarks

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu Jun 8 12:48:07 CEST 2006 
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Still, here's the timeit.py measurement of the PythonFunctionCall
> test (note that I've scaled down the test in terms of number
> of rounds for timeit.py):
> 
> Python 2.4:
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.8 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.8 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 10 loops, best of 3: 21.9 msec per loop
> 
> Python 2.5 as of last night:
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.4 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.4 msec per loop
> 100 loops, best of 3: 18.2 msec per loop
> 
> The pybench 2.0 result:
> 
> PythonFunctionCalls:   130ms   108ms  +21.3%   132ms   109ms  +20.9%
> 
> Looks about right, I'd say.

If the pybench result is still 2.5 first, then the two results are 
contradictory - your timeit results are showing Python 2.5 as being faster 
(assuming the headings are on the right blocks of tests).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
             http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list