«

David C. Ullrich wrote:

> f: 0.0158488750458
> g: 0.000610113143921
> h: 0.00200295448303
> f: 0.0184948444366
> g: 0.000257015228271
> h: 0.00116610527039

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

On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:18 -0500, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> Curiously <smug grin> g 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 <>
Land Title Guarantee Company

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

On 8 Aug, 20:36, John Krukoff <jkruk...@ltgc.com> wrote:
>
> 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%20an...s/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

On Aug 8, 7:18 pm, "David C. Ullrich" <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> 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