Skip to content

Conversation

@anarcat
Copy link

@anarcat anarcat commented Nov 21, 2019

The result of this here looks like this:

===========================  ==========  ===========
Table formatter                time, μs    rel. time
===========================  ==========  ===========
csv to StringIO                    14.7          1.0
join with tabs and newlines        20.3          1.4
asciitable (0.8.0)                338.4         23.0
tabulate (0.8.3)                  725.3         49.3
terminaltables (3.1.0)            806.5         54.8
PrettyTable (0.7.2)              1364.5         92.7
texttable (1.6.2)                2044.0        138.8
===========================  ==========  ===========

ie. it is very close to tabulate's results in terms of performance,
although it doesn't have the flexibility of tabulate in terms of
output formats.

The result of this here looks like this:

===========================  ==========  ===========
Table formatter                time, μs    rel. time
===========================  ==========  ===========
csv to StringIO                    14.7          1.0
join with tabs and newlines        20.3          1.4
asciitable (0.8.0)                338.4         23.0
tabulate (0.8.3)                  725.3         49.3
terminaltables (3.1.0)            806.5         54.8
PrettyTable (0.7.2)              1364.5         92.7
texttable (1.6.2)                2044.0        138.8
===========================  ==========  ===========

ie. it is *very* close to tabulate's results in terms of performance,
although it doesn't have the flexibility of tabulate in terms of
output formats.
@anarcat
Copy link
Author

anarcat commented Nov 21, 2019

also note that we just test one of the output formats above, we might want to see if the other perform differently?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant