python / python/cpython

json.dump(x,f) is much slower than f.write(json.dumps(x))

未关闭
#129,711 7 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

extension-modules performance stdlib type-bug
主要语言
Python
星标
77.2k
派生
36k
PR 合并指标
PR 指标待抓取

描述

Bug report

Bug description:

Experimentally I measured a huge performance improvement when I switched my code from

json.dump(x, f, **)

to

f.write(json.dumps(x, **))
Method

I essentially wrote the same contents to different files sequentially and measured the total amount of time taken. The json contents had 1, 300, and 400 entries per level, and 1, 5, and 6 levels of depth. There's quite a level of variance here but this wasn't what I was trying to measure in the first place. I discovered this by chance, so forgive the lack of precision. I also don't have the source code anymore because I wasn't originally planning to report this discovery.

Results
File Size Consecutive Files dump µs dumps µs
74 1 508 581
74 2 520 541
74 4 1153 1151
74 8 1930 1750
39184 1 6363 1086
39184 2 11261 1821
39184 4 38126 3521
39184 8 80411 6466
468218 1 82821 11921
468218 2 150234 38017
468218 4 302357 42137
468218 8 573450 78545
Conclusion

A cursory investigation into the cpython code suggests that the slow part is the sequential writing of the iterencode yield. The chunks are quite small.

CPython versions tested on:

3.10

Operating systems tested on:

macOS

Linked PRs
  • gh-130076

贡献指南

打开贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

调研方向

首先检查链接的 PR gh-130076,以及 CPython 中与 iterencode 的顺序写入相关的 JSON 代码。复现报告中的 dump-versus-dumps 计时结果,然后验证该更改是否能在更大规模的情况下提升 dump 性能,同时不改变输出。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

评估

技术栈
python
领域
backend
Issue 类型
缺陷
难度
4/5
预计耗时
3-5 天
活跃度
停滞
描述清晰度
基本清楚
新手友好度
35/100

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。