Message171153
woops, sry. Re-posting the benchmark, with three tests: the first one proposed (@abacabadabacaba) with very large sets; another one with smaller sets.
$ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(2000)); l = set(range(20000000))" "s-=l"
100 loops, best of 3: 9.71 usec per loop
[48787 refs]
$ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(1)); l = set(range(20))" "s-=l"
100 loops, best of 3: 0.366 usec per loop
$ hg co -C
$ make -j3
----[!PATCHED]--------------------------------------------------
$ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(2000)); l = set(range(20000000))" "s-=l"
100 loops, best of 3: 665 msec per loop
[48787 refs]
$ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(1)); l = set(range(20))" "s-=l"
100 loops, best of 3: 0.849 usec per loop
[48787 refs] |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-09-24 15:06:34 | maker | set | recipients:
+ maker, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, belopolsky, eric.smith, stutzbach, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, abacabadabacaba, serhiy.storchaka |
2012-09-24 15:06:34 | maker | set | messageid: <1348499194.62.0.751394172483.issue8425@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-09-24 15:06:34 | maker | link | issue8425 messages |
2012-09-24 15:06:33 | maker | create | |
|