| msg90157 - (view) |
Author: Scott David Daniels (scott_daniels) * |
Date: 2009-07-05 15:15 |
| timeit.main has a _very_ handy autoranging facility to pick an appropriate number of repetitions when not specified. The autoranging code should be lifted to a method on Timer instances (so non-main code can use it). If number is specified as 0 or None, I would like to use the results of that autoranging code in Timer.repeat and Timer.timeit. Patch to follow. |
|
|
| msg90245 - (view) |
Author: Scott David Daniels (scott_daniels) * |
Date: 2009-07-07 21:29 |
| I've got the code "working" on trunk2 for my tests. Should I port to py3K before checking in, and give diffs from there, or what? |
|
|
| msg90264 - (view) |
Author: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc (amaury.forgeotdarc) *  |
Date: 2009-07-08 12:01 |
| You can still upload available patches to this tracker. |
|
|
| msg90275 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2009-07-08 17:05 |
| I would like to look at this in context of all the other proposed build- outs to timeit. |
|
|
| msg122955 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2010-11-30 23:33 |
| This does not conflict with the other proposed changes to timeit and it is in-line with Guido's desire that to expose useful parts currently buried in the command-line logic. Amaury, you've shown an interest. Would you like to apply it? |
|
|
| msg123711 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-12-09 23:27 |
| Not sure why you chose 0.11 here. It should probably be 0.2 as in the command-line code. As for applying the patch, this can't be done before 3.2 is released. |
|
|
| msg164027 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2012-06-26 02:40 |
| Looking at this again after more time has passes, I still think exposing autoranging is a good idea but I don't like the patch as it stands. It "infects" the API in a number of places and makes the overall module harder to use and learn. Ideally, there should be a cleaner interface, or more limited API change, or a separate high level function that can autorange existing functions without changing their API. Anyone care to propose a cleaner API? |
|
|
| msg164070 - (view) |
Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2012-06-26 12:37 |
| In #5442, I proposed leaving the architecture of the module alone, and simply exposing the main module functionality as a high level helper function: def measure(stmt="pass", setup="pass", timer=default_timer, repeat=default_repeat, number=default_number, verbosity=0, precision=3) The return value would simply be a (number, results) 2-tuple with the number of iterations per test (which may have been calculated automatically), and then a list of the results. To get "timeit" style behavior, simply set "repeat=1". |
|
|
| msg164071 - (view) |
Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2012-06-26 12:39 |
| Oops, that link reference should have been to #5441. |
|
|
| msg164216 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2012-06-28 00:46 |
| Hi, I wrote recently a similar function because timeit is not reliable by default. Results look random and require to run the same benchmark 3 times or more on the command line. https://bitbucket.org/haypo/misc/src/tip/python/benchmark.py By default, the benchmark takes at least 5 measures, one measure should be greater than 100 ms, and the benchmark should not be longer than 1 second. I chose these parameters to get reliable results on microbenchmarks like "abc".encode("utf-8"). The calibration function uses also the precision of the timer. The user may define a minimum time (of one measure) smaller than the timer precision, so the calibration function tries to solve such issue. The calibration computes the number of loops and the number of repetitions. Look at BenchmarkRunner.calibrate_timer() and BenchmarkRunner.run_benchmark(). https://bitbucket.org/haypo/misc/src/bfacfb9a1224/python/benchmark.py#cl-362 |
|
|
| msg164217 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2012-06-28 00:55 |
| > The calibration function uses also the precision of the timer. Oh, I forgot to mention that it computes the precision in Python, it doesn't read the precision announced by the OS or the precision of the C structure. https://bitbucket.org/haypo/misc/src/bfacfb9a1224/python/benchmark.py#cl-66 |
|
|
| msg168796 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-08-21 18:47 |
| > In #5442, I proposed leaving the architecture of the module alone, and > simply exposing the main module functionality as a high level helper > function: Agreed with Nick's approach above. Victor, if you want to improve timeit's reliability, please open a separate issue. |
|
|
| msg238352 - (view) |
Author: Robert Collins (rbcollins) * |
Date: 2015-03-17 22:19 |
| I'm confused by the feedback on the patch. It adds a single new function, doesn't alter the public interface for any existing functions, and seems fit for purpose. Could someone help me understand how its deficient? |
|
|
| msg238354 - (view) |
Author: Robert Collins (rbcollins) * |
Date: 2015-03-17 22:35 |
| Filed #23693 for the accuracy thing. |
|
|
| msg238879 - (view) |
Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2015-03-22 06:54 |
| The current patch moves print operations inside timeit() and repeat(), instead of leaving the main() function as the only one with side effects. My counter-proposal was to instead extract the current main functionality out into a side-effect free public API of its own, and change the existing main function to call that new API and print the results. |
|
|
| msg265319 - (view) |
Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) * |
Date: 2016-05-11 15:28 |
| This issue seems to have lost momentum, I'd like to revive it by proposing a slightly different interface for the autorange function. Attached is a proof-of-concept patch. I've moved the code which determines the number of loops out of the main function into a new Timer method, ``autorange``. The main difference between my approach and Scott's is that my autorange method doesn't do any printing directly, it takes an optional callback function. This lets the caller take responsibility for all output. If this approach is acceptable, I hope to: - (in 3.6) add tests and docs for the new method; - (in 3.6 if time permits, otherwise 3.7) modify the timeit and repeat methods and functions so that they can optionally call autorange(), e.g. if the caller passes 0 as the number. I'm not sure that there's a good reason to add a top-level autorange() function to match the timeit() and repeat() functions. Especially not once they gain the ability to autorange themselves. I think my approach will be compatible with cleaning up and refactoring the main() function. At the moment, main() is a mess IMO, it handles argument processing, autoranging, units of time, and unreliable timing detection all from one function. |
|
|
| msg265322 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2016-05-11 15:50 |
| I would suggest making the 0.2 tunable as an optional argument. Different applications (benchmarks) may want different duration / precision tradeoffs. I also notice the repeat functionality isn't included in the patch, is there a reason? |
|
|
| msg265324 - (view) |
Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) * |
Date: 2016-05-11 16:08 |
| > I would suggest making the 0.2 tunable as an optional argument. Sounds like a good idea to me. > I also notice the repeat functionality isn't included in the patch, is there a reason? I don't understand which repeat functionality you're referring to. |
|
|
| msg265326 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2016-05-11 16:46 |
| > I don't understand which repeat functionality you're referring to. https://docs.python.org/3/library/timeit.html#timeit.Timer.repeat (or, similarly, what timeit's __main__ does: report the minimum of all N runs) |
|
|
| msg265360 - (view) |
Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2016-05-12 04:49 |
| The embedded side-effects were my main concern with Scott's original patch, so Steven's callback-based approach strikes me as a definite improvement. However, the awkwardness of the revised calling code in main does make me wonder whether or not this might be better implemented as a generator rather than as a function accepting a callback: try: results = list(t.autorange()) except: t.print_exc() return 1 if verbose: for number, time_taken in results: msg = "{} loops -> {:.{}g} secs" print(msg.format(number, time_taken, precision)) (Originally I had the "if verbose: print" embedded in a direct loop over t.autorange(), but writing it that way made it immediately clear that the scope of the exception handler was too broad, so I changed it to extract all the results and only then print them) |
|
|
| msg265418 - (view) |
Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) * |
Date: 2016-05-12 16:49 |
| On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:49:59AM +0000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > The embedded side-effects were my main concern with Scott's original > patch, so Steven's callback-based approach strikes me as a definite > improvement. However, the awkwardness of the revised calling code in > main does make me wonder whether or not this might be better > implemented as a generator rather than as a function accepting a > callback: I thought about a generator too, but then I thought about the *non* verbose case, where you don't care about the intermediate results, only the final (number, time_taken) pair. # function with callback: number, time_taken = t.autorange() # generator number, time_taken = list(t.autorange())[-1] Which hints that your code snippet is buggy, or at least incomplete: > try: > results = list(t.autorange()) > except: > t.print_exc() > return 1 > if verbose: > for number, time_taken in results: > msg = "{} loops -> {:.{}g} secs" > print(msg.format(number, time_taken, precision)) If verbose is False, you never set number and time_taken. So you need an else clause: else: number, time_taken = results[-1] |
|
|
| msg265442 - (view) |
Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2016-05-13 03:46 |
| Good point - given that, +1 from me for the callback based version, especially since exception chaining will still disambiguate failures in the callback from other errors. |
|
|
| msg272140 - (view) |
Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) * |
Date: 2016-08-08 00:59 |
| Nick gave a +1 to my auto-range patch with callback on 2016-05-13, and there's been no negative feedback since. Should I go ahead and check it in for 3.6? |
|
|
| msg272142 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2016-08-08 02:52 |
| I think the patch is good to go. |
|
|
| msg272676 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)  |
Date: 2016-08-14 15:27 |
| New changeset 424eb46f7f3a by Steven D'Aprano in branch 'default': Issue6422 add autorange method to timeit.Timer https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/424eb46f7f3a |
|
|
| msg272704 - (view) |
Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) * |
Date: 2016-08-15 01:15 |
| Still to do (coming soon): - make the 0.2s time configurable; - have `timeit` and `repeat` methods (and functions) fall back on `autorange` if the number is set to 0 or None. |
|
|
| msg338958 - (view) |
Author: Cheryl Sabella (cheryl.sabella) * |
Date: 2019-03-27 13:18 |
| Hello Steven, Were you working on the additional functionality that you mentioned in or would that be open for someone else to do? Thanks! |
|
|
| msg339011 - (view) |
Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) * |
Date: 2019-03-28 04:13 |
| > Were you working on the additional functionality that you mentioned in > or would that be open for someone else to do? Thanks! Please consider it open. I don't expect it to be difficult, it's just finding the Round Tuits. Perhaps an easy first issue for someone? |
|
|
| msg339024 - (view) |
Author: Cheryl Sabella (cheryl.sabella) * |
Date: 2019-03-28 09:46 |
| Steven, Thank you. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. But it might be better at this point for that change to have its own ticket, so I'll open a new issue for it. |
|
|
| msg339026 - (view) |
Author: Cheryl Sabella (cheryl.sabella) * |
Date: 2019-03-28 09:50 |
| The new ticket is #36461. |
|
|