Justin Azoff a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > >>And of course, I was right. My solution seems to be faster than Paul's >>one (but slower than bearophile's), be it on small, medium or large lists. > > > Your version is only fast on lists with a very small number of unique > elements. > > changing mklist to have > items = range(64) instead of the 9 item list and re-timing you will get > "better" results: > > A100 (10000 times): 7.63829684258 > B100 (10000 times): 1.34028482437 > C100 (10000 times): 0.812223911285 > > A10000 (100 times): 9.78499102592 > B10000 (100 times): 1.26520299911 > C10000 (100 times): 0.857560873032 > > A1000000 (10 times): 87.6713900566 > B1000000 (10 times): 12.7302949429 > C1000000 (10 times): 8.35931396484 >
Lol !-) So much for my benchmarking skills... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
