yappi VS py-spy

yappi

I've just realised after posting that the AUR package uses the git version, so it's actually normal that we have to use git version for austin-tui too and not the pypi one. Just if someone like me install the pypi version without paying attention, the git one is necessary.

For async code, the issue with normal profiler is that we end up mostly in the event loop. In Python there is https://github.com/sumerc/yappi which has a notion of coroutine profiling (check the README there), so I'm wondering if this would make sense in the context of Austin.

Anyway thanks for your work!

For CPU cycles, py-spy[0] is getting more and more used. For RAM, I would like to known too...

[0] -- https://github.com/benfred/py-spy

Theres also Py Spy, a profiling tool that can generate flame charts containing a mix of python and C (or C++) calls.

https://github.com/benfred/py-spy

It's worked really well for my needs

You should profile your consumer to check the bottlenecks. You can use the excellent py-spy(written in Rust). IMO a few usage of Numba there and there should solve your performance issues.

So as a first step you'll want to profile your program to figure out where it's slow, and hopefully that'll also tell you why it's slow. I'm the (biased) author of the Sciagraph profiler which is designed for this sort of application (https://sciagraph.com) but you can also try py-spy, which isn't as well designed for data processing/analysis applications (e.g. it won't visualize parallelism at all) but can still be informative (https://github.com/benfred/py-spy). Both are written in Rust ;)

Any advantages/disadvantages compared to py-spy [1]?

[1]: https://github.com/benfred/py-spy

Python profiling is enabled primarily through cprofile, and can be visualized with help of tools like snakeviz (output flame graph can look like this). There are also memory profilers like memray which does in-depth traces, or sampling profilers like py-spy.

A good profiler would be https://github.com/benfred/py-spy . If you run your app/benchmark with it, it should be able to draw a flamegraph telling you where the majority of time is spent. The info here is quite fine grained so it would already tell you where the bottleneck is. Without a full-fledged profiler you can also measure the timings in various parts of the code to understand where the bottleneck is.

Might be worth raising an issue on py-spy (a python profiler written in rust which "supports profiling native python extensions written in languages like C/C++ or Cython" to see if that can close the loop.