Joshua Bronson <jabron...@gmail.com> added the comment: > I prefer the docs the way they are. They help the reader understand > the relationship between min, max, nsmallest, nlargest, and sorted.
Except that it's no longer true that "when n==1, it is more efficient to use the builtin min() and max() functions." Shouldn't this be updated to say "when n==1, it is equivalent to using the builtin min() and max() functions"? > I'm not sure where you got the n * 10 <= len(iterable) switch-over > point. It's right in the file you linked to. Search for "n * 10" in http://svn.python.org/view/python/branches/release31-maint/Lib/heapq.py? revision=73579&view=markup. > That is arbitrary. The correct switchover point depends on the > cost of the comparison function, whether the length of the input is > known, whether the input data is partially ordered, memory constraints, > whether a key function is used, and on other factors. So should that be removed, then? > FWIW, I also wrote the logic for random.sample(). The switchover logic > was straight-forward because performance depended on factors that were > fully known (length of input, sample size, memory utilization, and > average number of probes for each strategy). > One other thought: When memory is tight, the programmer needs to be > able to select the heap algorithm in favor of sorted() even for > relatively large values of n. I do not want an automatic switchover > point that takes away a programmer's choice between speed and space > efficiency. Agreed, and thanks for the additional info. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6614> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
