Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gh-125420: implement Sequence.count API on memoryview objects #125443

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

picnixz
Copy link
Contributor

@picnixz picnixz commented Oct 14, 2024

@picnixz picnixz changed the title gh-125420: add count to memoryview objects gh-125420: implement Sequence.count API on memoryview objects Oct 14, 2024
Lib/test/test_memoryview.py Show resolved Hide resolved
Py_DECREF(iter);
return NULL;
}
int contained = PyObject_RichCompareBool(item, value, Py_EQ);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

list.count has a special case for if (item == value) count++. I suspect that helps significantly here too, because the value item will usually be an interned integer.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, PyObject_RichCompareBool has that fast path inside as well. I had the fast path before but then I wondered whether it was really needed or not (and I was a bit too lazy for benchmarkings). But I forgot about the interned integer case so it's probably faster.


Py_ssize_t count = 0;
PyObject *item = NULL;
while (PyIter_NextItem(iter, &item)) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could probably make this significantly more efficient by looking at the memory directly without materializing an iterator and all the elements. str.count is a similar example. However, that is going to be a lot more complicated, so it seems fine to skip it; if somebody wants to optimize this method later they can.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that's what I suspected so I went for the simplest approach (at least to have the code around).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants