Dennis Sweeney <sweeney.dennis...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Toward that end it would be fine to use "very high" cutoffs, and save tuning > for later. This feels reasonable to me -- I changed the cutoff to the more cautious `if (m >= 100 && n - m >= 5000)`, where the averages are very consistently faster by my measurements, and it seems that Tal confirms that, at least for the `m >= 100` part. More tuning may be worth exploring later, but this seems pretty safe for now, and it should fix all of the truly catastrophic cases like in the original post. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue41972> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
