Tim Peters wrote: > [MAL] > >>Here's the result for AMD Athlon 1.2GHz/Linux/gcc: >> >>without patch: >> >>Python/Tim-Python> ./python -O Lib/test/sortperf.py 15 20 1 >> i 2**i *sort \sort /sort 3sort +sort ~sort =sort !sort >>15 32768 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.09 >>16 65536 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.20 >>17 131072 0.46 0.06 0.02 0.45 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.49 >>18 262144 0.99 0.09 0.10 1.09 0.11 0.40 0.12 1.12 >>19 524288 2.33 0.20 0.20 2.30 0.24 0.83 0.19 2.47 >>20 1048576 4.89 0.40 0.41 5.37 0.48 1.71 0.38 6.22 > > > I assume you didn't read the instructions in the patch description: > > http://www.python.org/sf/587076 > > The patch doesn't change anything about how list.sort() works, so what > you've shown us is the timing variance on your box across two identical > runs. To time the new routine, you need to (temporarily) change L.sort() to > L.msort() in sortperf.py's doit() function. It's a one-character change, > but an important one <wink>. Dang. Why don't you distribute a ZIP file which can be dumped onto the standard Python installation ? Here's the .msort() version: Python/Tim-Python> ./python -O sortperf.py 15 20 1 i 2**i *sort \sort /sort 3sort +sort ~sort =sort !sort 15 32768 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 16 65536 0.17 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.06 17 131072 0.41 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.16 0.04 0.09 18 262144 0.95 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.10 0.20 19 524288 2.17 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.66 0.20 0.44 20 1048576 4.85 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.41 1.37 0.41 0.84 -- 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