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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #24841 > unrolled thread

Re: Why site-packages?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why site-packages? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 17:44 -0600

#24841 — Re: Why site-packages?

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.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web