Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!newsfeed.eweka.nl!eweka.nl!feeder3.eweka.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'msg': 0.07; 'correct,': 0.09; 'dict': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'wrong,': 0.09; '2.7.3': 0.16; 'caches': 0.16; 'called,': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'subject:search': 0.16; 'time.time()': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'basically': 0.17; 'skip:{ 20': 0.17; 'code,': 0.18; 'feb': 0.19; 'otherwise,': 0.20; 'work.': 0.23; 'demonstrate': 0.23; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'guess': 0.27; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.28; 'subject:/': 0.28; 'actual': 0.28; "d'aprano": 0.29; 'steven': 0.29; 'maybe': 0.29; 'fri,': 0.30; 'function': 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'could': 0.32; 'print': 0.32; 'hopefully': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'another': 0.33; 'faster': 0.35; 'doing': 0.35; 'received:org': 0.36; 'except': 0.36; 'but': 0.36; 'data.': 0.36; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'why': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'sure': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'where': 0.40; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'first': 0.61; 'show': 0.63; 'making': 0.64; 'gave': 0.65; '+1100': 0.84; '2013': 0.84; 'received:sd.cox.net': 0.84; 'subject:via': 0.84; 'results,': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: rh Subject: Re: Curious to see alternate approach on a search/replace via regex Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:13:26 -0800 References: <511319c7$0$21812$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> <51142e96$0$6512$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-227-87-145.sb.sd.cox.net User-Agent: dsodnetnin X-Mailer: EZnn0.37p X-Newsreader: EZnn0.37p X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: EZnn0.37p Original-Received: from slem by 1.1 with local X-No-Archive: yes Archive: no X-Archive: expiry=11 X-Archive: encrypt X-Operating-System: Barebones_6.1 X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.1.1 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.1.1 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 44 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1360278819 news.xs4all.nl 6912 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:40046 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:38382 On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:45:41 +1100 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > rh wrote: > > > I am using 2.7.3 and I put the re.compile outside the function and > > it performed faster than urlparse. I don't print out the data. > > I find that hard to believe. re.compile caches its results, so except > for the very first time it is called, it is very fast -- basically a > function call and a dict lookup. I find it implausible that a > micro-optimization such as you describe could be responsible for > speeding the code up by over 33%. Not sure where you came up with that number. Maybe another post? I never gave any numbers, just comparisons. > > But since you don't demonstrate any actual working code, you could be > correct, or you could be timing it wrong. Without seeing your timing > code, my guess is that you are doing it wrong. Timing code is tricky, > which is why I always show my work. If I get it wrong, someone will > hopefully tell me. Otherwise, I might as well be making up the > numbers. re.compile starttime = time.time() for i in range(numloops): u2f() msg = '\nElapsed {0:.3f}'.format(time.time() - starttime) print(msg) > > > > -- > Steven > --