range question, compared to Smalltalk
Neal Norwitz
neal at metaslash.com
Wed Aug 28 19:11:59 EDT 2002
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:40 -0400, Frank Buss wrote:
> "Bjorn Pettersen" <BPettersen at NAREX.com> wrote:
>
>> That, of course, depends <wink>. On my machine range is faster for
>> lists up to ~1500 items and comparable to xrange up to ~17000 items...
>> Test program below.
>
> Do you know the german saying "Wer misst misst Mist" (who measures
> measures muck) ? :-)
>
> Looks like it's highly optimized for loops and I can use it for this
> purpose. But lets try this code:
[snip]
I tried both programs with the current version of Python and xrange
seems to be the clear winner:
[neal at epoch src]$ ./python t2.py
9999 6.560 0.230 xrange
[neal at epoch src]$ ./python t2.py > n
# I stopped this after a while :-)
[neal at epoch src]$ grep -c ' range' n
1727
[neal at epoch src]$ grep -c 'xrange' n
9407
[neal at epoch src]$ wc n
11134 44536 411958 n
range rarely won, first winners were 141, 204, 254, 524, ...
But if you really want to make it go fast, use psyco. :-)
Neal
More information about the Python-list
mailing list