Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Buschke <magic-gentoo@××××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, Daniel Pielmeier <billie@g.o>, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] speeding up usage of portage in e-file / portage file list
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 16:40:38
Message-Id: 31d0cdc9-58fb-7c0f-4968-b3fa1f797316@damage.devloop.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] speeding up usage of portage in e-file / portage file list by Daniel Pielmeier
1 Am 24.05.2020 um 14:10 schrieb Daniel Pielmeier:
2 > Here the bash version takes around 2.9 seconds while the python version
3 > takes 3.2 seconds. Excluding the portage API it takes 2.8 seconds and
4 > also excluding the data query it takes 0.3 seconds. So in the python
5 > version the data query takes 2.5 seconds (probably this is similar for
6 > the bash version) while all the rest takes 0.7 seconds
7 >
8 > My initial tests showed that the bash version is a lot quicker than the
9 > python version. Somehow I can not reproduce this any more. As mentioned
10 > previously the data query is the most time consuming part in both the
11 > bash and the python version.
12
13 Oh dear! I readded the database index for file names. Now the data query
14 takes ~0.3 seconds *insert self slapping image here*
15
16 Anyway, for some strange reason I cannot reproduce the slothy behaviour
17 of portage, too. I'm 100% sure the bash version took 1 second while the
18 python version took 3 seconds. Strange.
19
20 @Zac: Did you add some performance optimizations in the last 30 days?
21 Maybe Caching? No? Then you fixed this by pure imagination :)
22
23 I will try again later. But currently I broke my system and am unable to
24 install termcolor 'cause of some python3_7 vs python3_6 f*%§up

Replies