Re: Why site-packages?

References	(1 earlier) <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> <CALwzid=60nkEHPwahfDduOye-rKRO=u5n+XqrhgXAufSrJhavQ@mail.gmail.com>
From	Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
Date	2012-07-03 17:44 -0600
Subject	Re: Why site-packages?
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.1768.1341359077.4697.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I ran a quick test where I copied my Python 2.5 installation on
Windows and cleared out the site-packages folder and ran the test from
the stackoverflow thread.

With crufty site-packages: 0.18s
With empty site-packages: 0.16s
With -S (either installation): 0.10s

So there does appear to be some improvement, but only a fraction of
what I get by using -S.

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 17:44 -0600

csiph-web