On Oct 14, 4:53 pm, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: > Some numbers: > > 10.197 seconds for running_median_scipy_medfilt > 25.043 seconds for running_median_python > 13.040 seconds for running_median_python_msort > 14.280 seconds for running_median_python_scipy_median > 4.024 seconds for running_median_numpy > 0.221 seconds for running_median_insort > > What would be an acceptable performance, by the way? >
That's great! Well, the faster it works, the better. It means I can process more data before getting frustrated. So if you have a faster version I'd like to see it :) Thankyou! Janto -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
