#13812 closed (fixed)
[patch] Change the way BaseContext maintains the dicts
Reported by: | Satoru Logic | Owned by: | Satoru Logic |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Template system | Version: | 1.2 |
Severity: | Keywords: | template context | |
Cc: | Alex Gaynor, Fredde, satorulogic@… | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
In django.template.context
, BaseContext
is the base class of several context classes.
By maintaining a list
of dict
, it supports a LIFO way of resolving template variables with contexts.
In the __getitem__
method, it searches for a dict reversely using reversed
, I think I can make it a little faster by just iterating the dict list, and maintain the reversed list in push
.
Attachments (2)
Change History (12)
by , 15 years ago
Attachment: | 13812_faster_context.diff added |
---|
follow-up: 4 comment:1 by , 15 years ago
comment:2 by , 15 years ago
Can collections.deque (http://docs.python.org/library/collections.html#deque-objects) be an alternative if this is critical for djangos performance?
It was added in python 2.4, which is the minimum requirement for django 1.2 if I don't remember wrong.
comment:3 by , 15 years ago
I'm not sure I follow what the issue with using reversed is? But yes, a deque could be used as it would give us O(1) insert/pop.
by , 15 years ago
Attachment: | 13812_faster_context_using_deque.diff added |
---|
comment:4 by , 15 years ago
Cc: | added; removed |
---|
Replying to Alex:
Maintaing the list this way is an order of magnitude more expensive, both pop(0) and insert(0) are O(n) operations, whereas using reversed() is the same complexity.
You are right :)
I didn't realized that insert(0, val)
and pop(0)
were O(n) operations and thought of a python list
as a traditional linked list in which insert(0, val)
and pop(0)
were O(1) operations.
After reading http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0290/#inserting-and-popping-at-the-beginning-of-lists, now I know that the right way to make it faster is to use collections.deque
.
comment:5 by , 15 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|
comment:6 by , 15 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:7 by , 14 years ago
Actually, looping with deque seems to be much slower: http://ideone.com/1SzEm, but you should probably do a real benchmark first.
comment:8 by , 14 years ago
Nevermind, my mistake. It turns out that call to reversed() is the most expensive part of the loop (which I omitted by accident in the first test case). Anyway, a real benchmark is probably a good idea.
comment:9 by , 14 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
This was fixed as a result of the work that brought us template compilation.
Maintaing the list this way is an order of magnitude more expensive, both pop(0) and insert(0) are O(n) operations, whereas using reversed() is the same complexity.