On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:36:12 +, John O'Hagan wrote:
> I sometimes use timeit to see if it's better to check if something needs
> doing, or to just do it anyway. This result was surprising:
>
> setup = 'd1 = {"a":0, "b":0}; d2 = {"a":0, "b":1}'
>
> Timer('d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit() 2.64
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "John O'Hagan" writes:
> > Timer('d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit()
> > 2.6499271392822266
> >
> > Timer('if d1 != d2: d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit()
> > 1.0235211849212646
> >
> > In other words, in this case it's substantially quicker to check for
> > some
"John O'Hagan" writes:
> Timer('d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit()
> 2.6499271392822266
>
> Timer('if d1 != d2: d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit()
> 1.0235211849212646
>
> In other words, in this case it's substantially quicker to check for
> something and then proceed, than it is to just proceed! I'm
I sometimes use timeit to see if it's better to check if something needs doing,
or to just do it anyway. This result was surprising:
setup = 'd1 = {"a":0, "b":0}; d2 = {"a":0, "b":1}'
Timer('d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit()
2.6499271392822266
Timer('if d1 != d2: d1.update(d2)', setup).timeit()
