docs: update performance results

The old results for Mercurial were missing an important
case utilizing a PyOxidizer executable with the stdlib importer.
This result helps isolate the overhead of Python's stdlib
importer versus PyOxidizer's.

Unsurprisingly, the stdlib importer's performance falls between
vanilla Python and PyOxidizer's importer.

Author: indygreg

docs/packaging_performance.rst

@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ We run the full Mercurial test harness on Linux on a Ryzen 3950X CPU using the
 following variants:
 
 * ``hg`` script with a ``#!/path/to/python3.7`` line (traditional)
+* ``hg`` PyOxidizer executable using Python's standard filesystem import (oxidized)
 * ``hg`` PyOxidizer executable using *filesystem-relative* resource loading (filesystem)
 * ``hg`` PyOxidizer executable using *in-memory* resource loading (in-memory)
 
@@ -100,15 +101,38 @@ The results are quite clear:
 +=============+==============+===========+========+
 | traditional |       11,287 |         0 |    100 |
 +-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+
+| oxidized    |       10,735 |      -552 |   95.1 |
++-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+
 | filesystem  |       10,186 |    -1,101 |   90.2 |
 +-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+
 | in-memory   |        9,883 |    -1,404 |   87.6 |
 +-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+
 
-PyOxidizer's custom importer with a full index of available resources
-that is still going to the filesystem is utilizing ~90% of the resources
-of a traditional Python process. And moving the resource data to memory
-makes PyOxidizer binaries faster yet.
+These results help us isolate specific areas of speedups:
+
+* *oxidized* over *traditional* is a rough proxy for the benefits of
+  ``python -S`` over ``python``. Although there are other factors at
+  play that may be influencing the numbers.
+* *filesystem* over *oxidized* isolates the benefits of using PyOxidizer's
+  importer instead of Python's default importer. The performance wins here
+  are due to a) avoiding excessive I/O system calls to locate the paths
+  to resources and b) functionality being implemented in Rust instead
+  of Python.
+* *in-memory* over *filesystem* isolates the benefits of avoiding
+  explicit filesystem I/O to load Python resources. The Rust code
+  backing these 2 variants is very similar. The only meaningful
+  difference is that *in-memory* constructs a Python object from
+  a memory address and *filesystem* must open and read a file using
+  standard OS mechanisms before doing so.
+
+From this data, one could draw a few conclusions:
+
+* Processing of the ``site`` module during Python interpreter
+  initialization can add substantial overhead.
+* Maintaining an index of Python resources such that you can avoid
+  discovery via filesystem I/O provides a meaningful speedup.
+* Loading Python resources from an in-memory data structure is
+  faster than incurring explicit filesystem I/O to do so.
 
 Ignoring ``site``
 =================