How fast can we make interpreted Python?
Authors: Russell Power, Alex Rubinsteyn
AI-generated Key Points
- Python is a widely used dynamic language with extensive libraries and extension modules
- Python is used for web development with Django and numerical analysis using NumPy
- Python's performance falls short compared to more modern languages like Lua and JavaScript
- Researchers Russell Power and Alex Rubinsteyn designed Falcon to address Python's performance issues while retaining access to existing extension libraries
- Falcon is a high-performance bytecode interpreter fully compatible with the standard CPython interpreter
- Falcon aims to accelerate the execution of Python bytecode by incorporating optimizations and introducing new techniques
- Falcon was found to be an average of 25% faster than the standard Python interpreter across most benchmarks, with some cases showing a speed improvement of about 2.5 times faster than traditional Python execution
Abstract: Python is a popular dynamic language with a large part of its appeal coming from powerful libraries and extension modules. These augment the language and make it a productive environment for a wide variety of tasks, ranging from web development (Django) to numerical analysis (NumPy). Unfortunately, Python's performance is quite poor when compared to modern implementations of languages such as Lua and JavaScript. Why does Python lag so far behind these other languages? As we show, the very same API and extension libraries that make Python a powerful language also make it very difficult to efficiently execute. Given that we want to retain access to the great extension libraries that already exist for Python, how fast can we make it? To evaluate this, we designed and implemented Falcon, a high-performance bytecode interpreter fully compatible with the standard CPython interpreter. Falcon applies a number of well known optimizations and introduces several new techniques to speed up execution of Python bytecode. In our evaluation, we found Falcon an average of 25% faster than the standard Python interpreter on most benchmarks and in some cases about 2.5X faster.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.