Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.python > #90293

Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it?

Path csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path <python-python-list@m.gmane.org>
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; 'subject:not': 0.03; 'explicit': 0.07; 'python3': 0.07; 'function,': 0.09; 'namespace': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; '10000000': 0.16; 'curious.': 0.16; 'function;': 0.16; 'globals': 0.16; 'lookups': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:dip0.t-ipconnect.de': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'received:t-ipconnect.de': 0.16; 'reminded': 0.16; 'supplying': 0.16; 'surprises': 0.16; 'two.': 0.16; 'prevent': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'do.': 0.18; 'stack': 0.19; '(the': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'mention': 0.26; 'header:X -Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'function': 0.29; 'skip:p 30': 0.29; "doesn't": 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'code': 0.31; '3.2': 0.31; 'apparently': 0.31; "d'aprano": 0.31; 'factor': 0.31; 'long.': 0.31; 'null)': 0.31; 'null;': 0.31; 'piece': 0.31; 'steven': 0.31; 'run': 0.32; 'actual': 0.34; 'could': 0.34; 'there': 0.35; 'consistent': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'so,': 0.37; 'turn': 0.37; 'being': 0.38; 'whatever': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'skip:p 20': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'how': 0.40; 'providing': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'times': 0.62; 'name': 0.63; 'results': 0.69; '1.6': 0.84; '2015': 0.84; 'cuts': 0.84; 'otten': 0.84; 'was:': 0.91
X-Injected-Via-Gmane http://gmane.org/
To python-list@python.org
From Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de>
Subject Re: Calling a function is faster than not calling it?
Date Sun, 10 May 2015 18:14:17 +0200
Organization None
References <554f2bb6$0$13011$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.304.1431254634.12865.python-list@python.org> <554f700f$0$13011$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7Bit
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host p57bd9920.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
User-Agent KNode/4.13.3
X-BeenThere python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version 2.1.20+
Precedence list
List-Id General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Message-ID <mailman.314.1431274466.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines 64
NNTP-Posting-Host 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace 1431274466 news.xs4all.nl 2900 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:45484
X-Complaints-To abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.python:90293

Show key headers only | View raw


Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> On Sun, 10 May 2015 08:43 pm, Peter Otten wrote:
> 
>> A significant part of the extra time is apparently spent on stack
>> inspection:
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "stack inspection", or how you come to that
> conclusion.
> 
> 
>> $ python3 -m timeit -s 'f = (lambda: 42); code = f.__code__; ns = {}'
>> 'f()' 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.179 usec per loop
>> 
>> $ python3 -m timeit -s 'f = (lambda: 42); code = f.__code__; ns = {}'
>> 'eval(code)'
>> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.852 usec per loop
>> 
>> $ python3 -m timeit -s 'f = (lambda: 42); code = f.__code__; ns = {}'
>> 'eval(code, ns)'
>> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.433 usec per loop
> 
> Curious.
> 
> If I'm reading that correctly, supplying an explicit namespace cuts the
> time by a factor of two. That surprises me, as your function doesn't do
> any name lookups in the body of the function, so I would have thought that
> would be irrelevant.

I had a quick look at the implementation in bltinmodule.c, and the only 
piece of code that I could prevent from being run was:

    if (globals == Py_None) {
        globals = PyEval_GetGlobals();
        if (locals == Py_None) {
            locals = PyEval_GetLocals();
            if (locals == NULL)
                return NULL;
        }
    }

When there was an actual speed-up I also had a look at 
PyEval_GetGlobals/Locals() which in turn call 

PyEval_GetFrame() 

and

PyEvalPyFrame_FastToLocalsWithError()

whatever these do. (The first function reminded me of sys._getframe() hence 
the mention of stack inspection)

>> $ python3 -m timeit -s 'f = (lambda: 42); code = f.__code__; ns = {}'
>> 'eval; ns; f()'
>> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.263 usec per loop
> 
> So, roughly speaking, calling eval(code, ns) takes about 1.6 times as long
> as calling the function; calling eval(code) without providing a namespace
> takes about 3.2 times as long. That's roughly consistent with the results
> I'm getting.
 

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


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