Colin> That's interesting but that's not the
Colin> way timeit is documented for Python 2.5:
Colin> timeit( [number=1000000])
That's how it works when invoked as a main program using -m.
Colin> In spite of the fact that your own data doesn't support the
Colin> assertion?
Colin> I would have expected numpy to be the clear winner for len >
Colin> 1,500.
It is. In fact, it's the clear winner well below that. Below I have
reorganized the timeit output so the units are the same for all runs
(*microseconds* per loop):
length numpy pure python
1 11.7 0.698
10 11.7 2.94
100 12.1 24.4
1000 15 224
10000 41 2170
100000 301 22200
--
Skip Montanaro - s...@pobox.com - http://smontanaro.dyndns.org/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
