Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #90306
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? |
| References | <554f2bb6$0$13011$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| Message-ID | <fNP3x.641427$3i4.583649@fx29.am4> (permalink) |
| Organization | virginmedia.com |
| Date | 2015-05-10 22:08 +0100 |
On 10/05/2015 10:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> from timeit import Timer
>
> def func():
> a = 2
> b = 3
> c = 4
> return (a+b)*(a-b)/(a*c + b*c)
>
>
> code = func.__code__
> assert func() == eval(code)
>
> t1 = Timer("eval; func()", setup="from __main__ import func")
> t2 = Timer("eval(code)", setup="from __main__ import code")
>
> # Best of 10 trials.
> print (min(t1.repeat(repeat=10)))
> print (min(t2.repeat(repeat=10)))
Maybe the overheads of using eval() are significant when calling a
simple function such as your example.
When I made it do a bit more work:
def func():
a = 2
b = 3
c = 4
for i in range(50):
x=(a+b)*(a-b)/(a*c + b*c)
return (a+b)*(a-b)/(a*c + b*c)
Then the eval() call took only 3% longer rather than 100%.
--
Bartc
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-10 19:58 +1000
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-10 12:34 +0200
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-11 01:04 +1000
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-05-10 12:43 +0200
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-11 00:49 +1000
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-05-10 18:14 +0200
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 10:25 -0600
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-05-10 12:37 -0400
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-10 22:08 +0100
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-11 13:58 +1000
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 10:50 +0100
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:12 -0500
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 16:01 +0100
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 10:13 -0500
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Tony the Tiger <tony@tiger.invalid> - 2015-05-15 01:35 +0000
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2015-05-11 08:11 +0200
Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it? Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2015-06-22 23:49 +0200
csiph-web