Tim Peters wrote: > One more bit of news: cross-box performance of this stuff is baffling. > Nobody else has tried timsort yet (unless someone who asked for the code > tried an earlier version), but there are Many Mysteries just looking at the > numbers for /sort under current CVS Python. Recall that /sort is the case > where the data is already sorted: it does N-1 compares in one scan, and > that's all. For an array with 2**20 distinct floats that takes 0.35 seconds > on my Win98SE 866MHz Pentium box, compiled w/ MSVC6. On my Win2K 866MHz > Pentium box, compiled w/ MSVC6, it takes 0.58(!) seconds, and indeed all the > sort tests take incredibly much longer on the Win2K box. On Fred's faster > Pentium box (I forget exactly how fast, >900MHz and <1GHz), using gcc, the > sort tests take a lot less time than on my Win2K box, but my Win98SE box is > still faster. > > Another Mystery (still with the current samplesort): on Win98SE, !sort is > always a bit faster than *sort. On Win2K and on Fred's box, it's always a > bit slower. I'm leaving that a mystery too. I haven't tried timsort on > another box yet, and given that my home machine may be supernaturally fast, > I'm never going to <wink>. I can give it a go on my AMD boxes if you send me the code. They tend to show surprising results as you know :-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4