On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsalists at gmail.com> wrote: > In my testing blist.sorteddict was dead last for random keys, and > wasn't last but was still significantly underperforming for sequential > keys (outperforming only binary tree and scapegoat tree, behind all > others): > > > http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/python-tree-and-heap-comparison/2014-03-18/ > Could you post the source code for your test tools, so that I can reproduce them locally and understand the results better? I think I'm confused about what you're trying to measure. It looks like the tests perform get and set operations, neither of which required a sorted dict. Wouldn't a good comparison of sorted dict types include at least one operation that relies on the sorted property? Possibly I've misunderstood how your tests work. -- Daniel Stutzbach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140331/65acea2a/attachment.html>
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