Alex Martelli wrote:
> Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>> Considering the number time I sort keys after getting them, It's the
>> behavior I would prefer. Maybe a more dependable dict.sortedkeys()
>> method would be nice. ;-)
>
> sorted(d) is guaranteed to do exactly the same thing as sorted(d.keys())
> AND to be faster (would be pretty weird if it weren't faster...!).
>
> E.g., ...:
>
> helen:~ alex$ python -mtimeit -s'd=dict(enumerate("tarazoplay"))'
> 'sorted(d.keys())'
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 6.82 usec per loop
>
> helen:~ alex$ python -mtimeit -s'd=dict(enumerate("tarazoplay"))'
> 'sorted(d)'
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 5.98 usec per loop
>
>
> Alex
Yes, it did decrease it. And simplified it as well. ;)
def psort11(s1, s2):
d = dict(zip(s2, s1))
assert len(d) == len(s1)
sorted(d)
s1[:] = d.values()
psort1 0.554 s
psort2 0.727 s
psort3 0.295 s
psort4 0.293 s
psort5 0.831 s
psort6 0.438 s
psort7 0.575 s
psort8 0.845 s
psort9 0.424 s
psort10 0.235 s
psort11 0.206 s
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
