Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 2, 12:55 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: > > Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, for one thing, you're creating half a million xrange objects in > > > the course of the search. All the C code has > > > to do is increment a few integers. > > > > I don't think the creation of xrange objects is a meaningful part of > > Python's execution time here. Consider: > > [...] > > Agreed---I just came to the same conclusion after doing some tests. > So maybe it's the billion or so integer objects being created that > dominate the running time? (Not sure how many integer objects > actually are created here: doesn't Python cache *some* small > integers?)
Yep, some, say -5 to 100 or thereabouts; it also caches on a free-list all the "empty" integer-objects it ever has (rather than returning the memory for the system), so I don't think there's much optimization to be had on that score either. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
