cStringIO rules (was Re: O(n^2) is bad - can it be fixed?)

[Mark C Favas]

[Alex adds cStringIO to his tests, and it proves to be faster...]

>Good point!  So I added it to my little measurement script:

>def AppendTest(listorarray):
>    head = repr(listorarray)
>    start = time.clock()
>    for i in range(0, 100):
>        for x in range(0, 2000):
>            listorarray.append(' ')
>        # print i
>    stend = time.clock()
>    print "%s: %.2f" % (head, stend-start)

>def AppendTest1(listorarray):
>    head = repr(listorarray)
>    start = time.clock()
>    for i in range(0, 100):
>        for x in range(0, 2000):
>            listorarray.write(' ')
>        # print i
>    stend = time.clock()
>    print "%s: %.2f" % (head, stend-start)

>AppendTest([])
>AppendTest(array.array('c'))
>AppendTest1(cStringIO.StringIO())

>and, whaddyaknow...:

>D:\py21>python oaat.py
>[]: 1.96
>array('c'): 1.57
><StringO object at 007F63B0>: 0.86


and running it on current CVS Python, on Tru64 Unix, I get:

python oaat.py 
[]: 1.13
array('c'): 1.55
<StringO object at 1400e4f70>: 1.22

python oaat.py 
[]: 1.13
array('c'): 1.58
<StringO object at 1400e4f70>: 1.22

So, platforms are (surprise!) different...

Mark
--
Email  - mark at chem.uwa.edu.au      ,-_|\                           Mark C Favas
Phone  - +61 9 380 3482           /     \               Department of Chemistry
Fax    - +61 9 380 1005      ---> *_,-._/   The University of Western Australia
                                       v                               Nedlands
Loc    - 31.97 S, 115.81 E                               Western Australia 6009