On 8/22/2011 2:55 AM Richard D. Moores said...
I couldn't resist giving it a try. Using Python 3.2.1 on a 64-bit
Windows 7 machine with a 2.60 gigahertz AMD Athlon II X4 620
processor, I did 18 tests, alternating between n=n+1 and n+=1 (so 9
each).
The fastest for n+=1 was
C:\Windows\System32> python -m timeit -r 3 -s "n=0" "n += 1"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.0879 usec per loop
The slowest for n+=1 was
C:\Windows\System32> python -m timeit -r 3 -s "n=0" "n += 1"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.0902 usec per loop
The fastest for n = n + 1 was
C:\Windows\System32> python -m timeit -r 3 -s "n=0" "n=n+1"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.0831 usec per loop
The slowest for n = n + 1 was
C:\Windows\System32> python -m timeit -r 3 -s "n=0" "n=n+1"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.0842 usec per loop
Coincidence?
Naaa.. I just ran it twice -- once per ... _this_ is coincidence. :)
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Emile>python -m timeit -r 3 -s "n=0" "n=n+1"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.108 usec per loop
C:\Documents and Settings\Emile>python -m timeit -r 3 -s "n=0" "n += 1"
10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.108 usec per loop
C:\Documents and Settings\Emile>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
