-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.1k
gh-138232: Improve performance of dataclasses by caching dataclass field names #138233
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
Open
eendebakpt
wants to merge
10
commits into
python:main
Choose a base branch
from
eendebakpt:dataclass_field_names
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
07a4ee3
Improve performance of dataclasses by caching dataclass field names
eendebakpt ab5d43b
Apply suggestions from code review
eendebakpt 20c603a
Update Lib/dataclasses.py
eendebakpt ea105e2
📜🤖 Added by blurb_it.
blurb-it[bot] f65d9a4
Merge branch 'main' into dataclass_field_names
eendebakpt 573b186
address review comments
eendebakpt 5c8892b
inline _field_names
eendebakpt eef9041
Merge branch 'main' into dataclass_field_names
eendebakpt b1419fd
inline part 2
eendebakpt 720ef42
Merge branch 'main' into dataclass_field_names
eendebakpt File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions
1
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2025-08-29-17-58-36.gh-issue-138232.-W4iaS.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Improve performance of :func:`dataclasses.asdict` up to 40% by caching the field names on dataclass classes. |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you want, you can also do
cls.__dataclass_field_names__ = ...
directly (I would also advise you to consider this as part of the "inline" commit, so you can also force-push this one).An other alternative is to only inline
getattr(x, _FIELDS_NAMES)
instead of having a standalone function for that. It could also improve readability a bit and justify the needs of the global_FIELD_NAMES
.IOW, choose among the following:
__dataclass_field_names__
everywhere, without having using getattr/setattr and_FIELD_NAMES
._FIELD_NAMES
+getattr/setattr(..., _FIELD_NAMES)
directly._FIELD_NAMES
+ a module-wide function defined to be the partialization_get_names(x) ~ getattr(x, _FIELD_NAMES)
.My preference is (1) or (2) but (3) is an overkill IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, going for option (1)