Timeline for Python's time.clock() vs. time.time() accuracy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2022 at 10:58 | comment | added | mxmlnkn |
time.process_time does not include time spent in sleep, which might be an issue when trying to time multithreaded code or code waiting for I/O in my experience. The only timer, which does not have that problem is time.time but it slower. Isn't there any other alternative which includes time spent in sleep?
|
|
| Mar 4, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | Jim Aho |
As can be read here it seems the behaviour of time.clock() was depedent on the platform, and time.process_time() is not. This is the reason why time.clock() was deprecated.
|
|
| Jul 7, 2015 at 13:50 | history | edited | haggai_e | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
wrong link for timeit module
|
| Oct 29, 2014 at 19:44 | history | edited | Jason Navarrete | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
time.clock() deprecated in 3.3, adding suggested alternatives
|
| Oct 28, 2014 at 17:42 | comment | added | jfs | @smci: Python bug: remove obsolete remark in time.clock() docs | |
| Nov 16, 2012 at 19:47 | comment | added | smci | @Corey Goldberg: so did you submit a documentation bug? (They meant "use clock() rather than time():, but yeah it's sloppy) | |
| Sep 19, 2008 at 19:44 | comment | added | Corey Goldberg | "this is the function to use for benchmarking Python or timing algorithms."<br> The Python docs don't seem to be accurate based on the answers given here. time.clock() is not always what you want for benchmarking. especially with the existence of the timeit module | |
| Sep 17, 2008 at 17:18 | history | answered | Jason Navarrete | CC BY-SA 2.5 |