RetroSearch Browse

Mon Oct 10 17:16:32 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-October/146634.html

Hm... that is strange, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the
way I'm timing, though I agree perf/timeit would be better. I ran the
benchmark a couple of times and the numbers seem to exactly line up
something like one in five times; perhaps not that crazy considering
they're executing nearly the same code?

Anyway, benchmarking technique aside, the point is that it it works well
for small lists (i.e. doesn't affect performance).

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:53 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Elliot Gorokhovsky
> <elliot.gorokhovsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > *** 10 strings ***
> > F.fastsort(): 1.6689300537109375e-06
> > F.sort(): 1.6689300537109375e-06
>
> I think something has gone wrong with your timing harness...
>
> For accurately timing microbenchmarks, you should use timeit, or
> better yet Victor Stinner's perf package:
>   https://perf.readthedocs.io/
>
> -n
>
> --
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20161010/23bac208/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-October/146634.html below:

[Python-Dev] Optimizing list.sort() by checking type in advance