[openstack-dev] [all][python3] use of six.iteritems()
ihrachys at redhat.com
Wed Jun 10 09:30:40 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 06/10/2015 02:15 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> I'm very glad folk are working on Python3 ports.
> I'd like to call attention to one little wart in that process: I
> get the feeling that folk are applying a massive regex to find
> things like d.iteritems() and convert that to six.iteritems(d).
> I'd very much prefer that such a regex approach move things to
> d.items(), which is much easier to read.
> Here's why. Firstly, very very very few of our dict iterations are
> going to be performance sensitive in the way that iteritems()
> matters. Secondly, no really - unless you're doing HUGE dicts, it
> doesn't matter. Thirdly. Really, it doesn't.
Does it hurt though? ;)
> At 1 million items the overhead is 54ms. If we're doing inner
> loops on million item dictionaries anywhere in OpenStack today, we
> have a problem. We might want to in e.g. the scheduler... if it
> held in-memory state on a million hypervisors at once, because I
> don't really to to imagine it pulling a million rows from a DB on
> every action. But then, we'd be looking at a whole 54ms. I think we
> could survive, if we did that (which we don't).
> So - please, no six.iteritems().
The reason why in e.g. neutron we merged the patch using six.iteritems
is that we don't want to go too deep into determining whether the
original usage of iteritems() was justified. The goal of the patch is
to get python3 support, not to apply subjective style guidelines, so
if someone wants to eliminate .iteritems(), he should create another
patch just for that and struggle with reviewing it. While folks
interested python3 can proceed with their work.
We should not be afraid of multiple patches.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the OpenStack-dev