I could use some help making this Python code run faster using only Python code.

[Duncan Booth]

George Sakkis <george.sakkis at gmail.com> wrote:

> It has to do with the input string length; try multiplying it by 10 or
> 100. Below is a more complete benchmark; for largish strings, the imap
> version is the fastest among those using the original algorithm. Of
> course using a lookup table as Diez showed is even faster. FWIW, here
> are some timings (Python 2.5, WinXP):
> 
> scramble:       1.818
> scramble_listcomp:      1.492
> scramble_gencomp:       1.535
> scramble_map:   1.377
> scramble_imap:  1.332
> scramble_dict:  0.817
> scramble_dict_map:      0.419
> scramble_dict_imap:     0.410

I added another one:

import string
scramble_translation = string.maketrans(''.join(chr(i) for i in xrange
(256)), ''.join(chr(i|0x80) for i in xrange(256)))
def scramble_translate(line):
    return string.translate(line, scramble_translation)

...
    funcs = [scramble, scramble_listcomp, scramble_gencomp,
             scramble_map, scramble_imap,
             scramble_dict, scramble_dict_map, scramble_dict_imap,
             scramble_translate
         ]


and I think I win:

scramble:       1.949
scramble_listcomp:      1.439
scramble_gencomp:       1.455
scramble_map:   1.470
scramble_imap:  1.546
scramble_dict:  0.914
scramble_dict_map:      0.415
scramble_dict_imap:     0.416
scramble_translate:     0.007