This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author Dennis Sweeney
Recipients Dennis Sweeney, Zeturic, ammar2, corona10, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, josh.r, pmpp, serhiy.storchaka, taleinat, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2020-11-07.01:59:40
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
>  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 01:59:41Dennis Sweeneysetrecipients: + Dennis Sweeney, gvanrossum, tim.peters, gregory.p.smith, vstinner, taleinat, pmpp, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, ammar2, corona10, Zeturic
2020-11-07 01:59:41Dennis Sweeneysetmessageid: <>
2020-11-07 01:59:41Dennis Sweeneylinkissue41972 messages
2020-11-07 01:59:40Dennis Sweeneycreate