-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 399
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Missing memory profiling in a function (with contrast to memory_profiler
)
#167
Comments
Can you test with the repo version? (Just verified that it works for me; we're planning on releasing this soon as 1.3.1.)
|
...and now in version 1.3.1, on pip. |
Since I believe this is fixed, closing. @ianozsvald please re-open if it's not fixed on your end! |
I've upgraded to 1.3.2. I note that on each run I get a different result now - perhaps this is a consequence of using a sampling profiler? Notably:
and
I'm using the same code as before. The Could you comment on the reason for the variability? If it is due to sampling - is there a way to make the sampling occur more frequently? I'm asking partly for academic interest (when I'm teaching, as I have done using scalene recently) and partly because this sort of variability when diagnosing Pandas would hamper efforts of folk to try to figure out what the heck Pandas is doing :-) |
@ianozsvald thanks for the report - we are looking into it! |
Belatedly: I believe this has stabilized. @ianozsvald can you give it another try? Right now, there is no way to make sampling occur more frequently but this is something we can look into if the current status isn't quite there. Thanks! |
Please install from the repo version for now: |
memory_profiler
andscalene
given different depths of coverage of memory profiling on a simple Pandas example, Scalene gives less information, I think this is a bug.The sample code is listed in full below. I include full outputs from the code for both profilers. Specifically look at
get_mean_for_indicator_poor
wherememory_profiler
identifies line 19 as costing 850MB whilst Scalene identifies nothing. In theget_mean_for_indicator_better
function both profilers correctly identify 27 as being expensive.@emeryberger you may recognise this code as being a variant of pandas-dev/pandas#37139
Scalene output (using Scalene 1.2.4):
memory_profiler
output:I'm using Linux Mint 20.1 (Cinnamon):
Full source:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: