| 1 |
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 05:10, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sort of. It's true that there's a lot that could be done to improve |
| 3 |
> portage performance without changing languages. Nonetheless, even the |
| 4 |
> smallest test shows that python has a poor startup time. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> $ time python -c 'print "hi"' |
| 7 |
> user 0m0.023s |
| 8 |
> sys 0m0.004s |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> $ time perl -e 'print "hi\n"' |
| 11 |
> user 0m0.003s |
| 12 |
> sys 0m0.003s |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
True, in fact python-2.3 is even worse at startup times. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
However, that python startup time is negligible compared to calling |
| 17 |
"import portage" where it loads the portdb from disk. For instance, the |
| 18 |
newest portage calls portageq continuously, and every instance of it |
| 19 |
does "import portage" which is really slow on my machine. When I say |
| 20 |
slow, that is a bit more than 2 seconds (5 seconds before disk cache). |
| 21 |
But if it runs that for every package I have in world, then that is |
| 22 |
461*2 ~ 920seconds just for calling "import portage". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Oh, and just for comparison: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
mcvaio work # time python -c 'print "hi"' |
| 27 |
hi |
| 28 |
real 0m0.244s |
| 29 |
user 0m0.107s |
| 30 |
sys 0m0.029s |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
mcvaio work # time perl -e 'print "hi\n"' |
| 33 |
hi |
| 34 |
real 0m0.046s |
| 35 |
user 0m0.007s |
| 36 |
sys 0m0.008s |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
(after a couple of runs) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
That is with python-2.3.2 and perl-5.8.2. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Anyway, I've ventured far enough off topic here. I personally think |
| 43 |
speed is only one small factor in determining what portage-ng would use, |
| 44 |
more so for startup speed as well. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Cheers, |
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse |
| 49 |
>> Gentoo Developer |
| 50 |
>> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/ |
Archives