Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.103.MISMATCH!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.86.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'skip:[ 20': 0.04; 'appropriate.': 0.09; 'lookup': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'jan': 0.12; 'dictionary.': 0.16; 'doubles': 0.16; 'morning,': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'subject:slow': 0.16; 'appropriate': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; '>>>': 0.22; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.23; "aren't": 0.24; 'task': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'function': 0.29; 'michael': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'array': 0.29; 'probably': 0.32; 'wrong': 0.37; 'list': 0.37; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'received:71': 0.39; 'structure': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; "you're": 0.61; 'more': 0.64; 'received:fios.verizon.net': 0.84; 'directly.': 0.95 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: weakref, memory management and execution slow down in PyQt4 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:15:15 -0400 References: <540BFE43.5030006@riseup.net> <540CADDD.3050501@riseup.net> <540CB15C.2060008@gmail.com> <540CC278.4050106@riseup.net> <540E40FD.8030706@gmail.com> <540E69AF.5040309@riseup.net> <540F1E16.5060003@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-71-175-90-87.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <540F1E16.5060003@gmail.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1410315349 news.xs4all.nl 2848 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:46248 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:77750 On 9/9/2014 11:34 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 09/08/2014 08:45 PM, kjs wrote: >> You're right, a dictionary can do everything I need and more. > > Actually I am wrong in suggesting a dictionary. A list or an array > would probably be more appropriate. > > Thinking about it this morning, one additional reason why getattr and > setattr aren't appropriate for this task is that they are not just a > dictionary lookup under the hood, they are an additional layer. One > more function call that would be unnecessary if you used a data > structure directly. The extra function call for getattr at least doubles the lookup time >>> repeat("C.a", "class C: a=1") [0.06093001107618079, 0.042186288111423664, 0.04218598069616064] >>> repeat("getattr(C, 'a')", "class C: a=1") [0.13152054655972734, 0.1100451316336688, 0.11021882125309901] -- Terry Jan Reedy