INADA Naoki songofacandy at gmail.com
Tue Jul 18 06:04:37 EDT 2017

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Impact of Namedtuple on startup time
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Program runs in 12s on Python 2.7, but 5s on Python 3.5 -- why so much difference?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

>
> I think that the right solution of this issue is generalizing the import
> machinery and allowing it to cache not just files, but arbitrary chunks of
> code. We already use precompiled bytecode files for exactly same goal --
> speed up the startup by avoiding compilation. This solution could be used
> for caching other generated code, not just namedtuples.
>

I thought about adding C implementation based on PyStructSequence.
But I like Jelle's approach because it may improve performance on all
Python implementation.

It's reducing source to eval.  It shares code objects for most methods.
(refer https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/2736#issuecomment-316014866
for quick and dirty bench on PyPy)

I agree that template + eval pattern is nice for readability when comparing to
other meta-programming magic.
And code cache machinery can improve template + eval pattern in CPython.

But namedtuple is very widely used.
It's loved enough to get optimized for not only CPython.
So I prefer Jelle's approach to adding code cache machinery in this case.

Regards,

INADA Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Impact of Namedtuple on startup time
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Program runs in 12s on Python 2.7, but 5s on Python 3.5 -- why so much difference?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list