Message380487
> Toward that end it would be fine to use "very high" cutoffs, and save tuning for later.
This feels reasonable to me -- I changed the cutoff to the more cautious `if (m >= 100 && n - m >= 5000)`, where the averages are very consistently faster by my measurements, and it seems that Tal confirms that, at least for the `m >= 100` part. More tuning may be worth exploring later, but this seems pretty safe for now, and it should fix all of the truly catastrophic cases like in the original post. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-11-07 01:59:41 | Dennis Sweeney | set | recipients:
+ Dennis Sweeney, gvanrossum, tim.peters, gregory.p.smith, vstinner, taleinat, pmpp, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, ammar2, corona10, Zeturic |
2020-11-07 01:59:41 | Dennis Sweeney | set | messageid: <1604714381.08.0.829503523834.issue41972@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-11-07 01:59:41 | Dennis Sweeney | link | issue41972 messages |
2020-11-07 01:59:40 | Dennis Sweeney | create | |
|