Re: Why site-packages?

References	<CAGGBd_przF6HtPz5EQ=D8PssmQSda79n=ZwkZKoeQDaz4Dpg8w@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidnvsU=zT0Vi2ckTNA6pwBbHLb-S34HcXpt1QDwX8rJGWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGGBd_rK+D8DE0FkGLSpVbbpZc-YommKKtX_ki2wJOacVVe3Zg@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidm50L-b1ToHx94bgnHt0j8gUeHJ8Rx6vtDGSBh4NQGmyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGGBd_pXzL0iZ2eCcT8ntKaopjhJV05j3suOvwiyjEqzHwr=MA@mail.gmail.com>
From	Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
Date	2012-07-03 17:06 -0600
Subject	Re: Why site-packages?
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.1766.1341356803.4697.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Right now this all seems highly speculative to me.  I think it might
>> be informative, either to you or to me, to do an actual timing test.
>> Why don't you try setting up two side-by-side installations of Python,
>> one with all the site-packages cruft, and one trimmed down to only
>> what you think should be in there, and see if you can measure a real
>> difference in startup time?
>
> In the original stackoverflow thread I mentioned, there's a speed
> comparison.

That's just comparing using -S against not using -S, though.  As I
understand it, you don't want to use -S; you still want to import site
but just want to pare down your site-packages for a speedup.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why site-packages? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 17:06 -0600

csiph-web