[willseth]

Every Python programmer should be thinking about far more important things than low level performance minutiae. Great reference but practically irrelevant except in rare cases where optimization is warranted. If your workload grows to the point where this stuff actually matters, great! Until then it’s a distraction.

[HendrikHensen]

Having general knowledge about the tools you're working with is not a distraction, it's an intellectual enrichment in any case, and can be a valuable asset in specific cases.

[willseth]

Knowing that an empty string is 41 bytes or how many ns it takes to do arithmetic operations is not general knowledge.

[oivey]

How is it not general knowledge? How do you otherwise gauge if your program is taking a reasonable amount of time, and, if not, how do you figure out how to fix it?

[dirtbag__dad]

In my experience, which is series A or earlier data intensive SaaS, you can gauge whether a program is taking a reasonable amount of time just by running it and using your common sense.

P50 latency for a fastapi service’s endpoint is 30+ seconds. Your ingestion pipeline, which has a data ops person on your team waiting for it to complete, takes more than one business day to run.

Your program is obviously unacceptable. And, your problems are most likely completely unrelated to these heuristics. You either have an inefficient algorithm or more likely you are using the wrong tool (ex OLTP for OLAP) or the right tool the wrong way (bad relational modeling or an outdated LLM model).

If you are interested in shaving off milliseconds in this context then you are wasting your time on the wrong thing.

All that being said, I’m sure that there’s a very good reason to know this stuff in the context of some other domains, organizations, company size/moment. I suspect these metrics are irrelevant to disproportionately more people reading this.

At any rate, for those of us who like to learn, I still found this valuable but by no means common knowledge

[oivey]

I'm not sure it's common knowledge, but it is general knowledge. Not all HNers are writing web apps. Many may be writing truly compute bound applications.

In my experience writing computer vision software, people really struggle with the common sense of how fast computers really are. Some knowledge like how many nanoseconds an add takes can be very illuminating to understand whether their algorithm's runtime makes any sense. That may push loose the bit of common sense that their algorithm is somehow wrong. Often I see people fail to put bounds on their expectations. Numbers like these help set those bounds.

[dirtbag__dad]

Thanks this is helpful framing!

[willseth]

You gauge with metrics and profiles, if necessary, and address as needed. You don’t scrutinize every line of code over whether it’s “reasonable” in advance instead of doing things that actually move the needle.

[oivey]

These are the metrics underneath it all. Profiles tell you what parts are slow relative to others and time your specific implementation. How long should it take to sum together a million integers?

[willseth]

It literally doesn’t matter unless it impacts users. I don’t know why you would waste time on non problems.

[cycomanic]

But these performance numbers are meaningless without some sort of standard comparison case. So if you measure that e.g. some string operation takes 100ns, how do you compare against the numbers given here? Any difference could be due to PC, python version or your implementation. So you have to do proper benchmarking anyway.

[ehaliewicz2]

If your program does 1 million adds, but it takes significantly longer than 19 milliseconds, you can guess that something else is going on.

[amelius]

Yeah, if you hit limits just look for a module that implements the thing in C (or write it). This is how it was always done in Python.

[ryandrake]

I am currently (as we type actually LOL) doing this exact thing in a hobby GIS project: Python got me a prototype and proof of concept, but now that I am scaling the data processing to worldwide, it is obviously too slow so I'm rewriting it (with LLM assistance) in C. The huge benefit of Python is that I have a known working (but slow) "reference implementation" to test against. So I know the C version works when it produces identical output. If I had a known-good Python version of past C, C++, Rust, etc. projects I worked on, it would have been most beneficial when it came time to test and verify.

[pjmlp]

I rather have a JIT that avoids the "rewrite in C", unless there is no way around it, after heroic optimizations.

[willseth]

Sometimes it’s as simple as finding the hotspot with a profiler and making a simple change to an algorithm or data structure, just like you would do in any language. The amount of handwringing people do about building systems with Python is silly.

[kc0bfv]

I agree - however, that has mostly been a feeling for me for years. Things feel fast enough and fine.

This page is a nice reminder of the fact, with numbers. For a while, at least, I will Know, instead of just feel, like I can ignore the low level performance minutiae.