Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: "Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Heap Implementation
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:20:58 +0100
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <mailman.19.1454433664.3032.python-list@python.org>
References: <56AD3D83.2050308@mail.de> <CACs7g=B_7zGxfB5PYXH7LLL=qcABH49tQc3_-9mGCGkQq2naTQ@mail.gmail.com> <56AF94B7.9050203@mail.de> <CACs7g=D7d=RzLFu+7PYT-5QoqyPQdgCsLKY=JDUrhL6D=QjzLg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de aCsjYpx1X931lItoz3kaHAvduCGK4CDw7VbjePOVAlGg==
Return-Path: <srkunze@mail.de>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.058
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.88; '*S*': 0.00; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.09; 'indeed,': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; '10:54': 0.16; '2016': 0.16; 'comparison.': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'obviously': 0.16; 'memory': 0.17; '&gt;': 0.18; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.20; 'cc:2**1': 0.22; 'feb': 0.23; 'cc:addr:gmail.com': 0.24; 'implemented': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.24; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'code': 0.30; 'compared': 0.30; 'maybe': 0.33; 'previous': 0.34; 'received:10.0': 0.34; 'running': 0.34; 'so,': 0.35; 'best,': 0.35; 'could': 0.35; 'express': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'faster': 0.36; 'pm,': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; "didn't": 0.39; 'well.': 0.40; 'received:de': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'back': 0.62; 'other.': 0.64; 'request.': 0.66; 'approaches': 0.72; 'feeling': 0.72; 'complexity': 0.84; 'sweeping': 0.84; 'absolutely': 0.88; 'approaches,': 0.91
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mail.de; s=mail201212; t=1454433662; bh=yYn8teTdqlDgoSfEGtn4cJdU95A2pQZbuA81HJ8H8ic=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UsnSnk7sq3jSul1LsKGwtlTa4vCnr3QIc49FNNEo13OAkePG0RHhT62xKjnykE6+9 ds5hvnDeYYGb3O214FUoXXJTss8m66Tv2YMwujC4KUiAZoT6SF67ihK+scn6wBNQdz yKkqTMMX/Aka5iLv5sMkWZxeFNKR+UZCHvo2fzcA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
In-Reply-To: <CACs7g=D7d=RzLFu+7PYT-5QoqyPQdgCsLKY=JDUrhL6D=QjzLg@mail.gmail.com>
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate-size: 3424
X-purgate-ID: 154282::1454433661-000009F3-CA6959AC/0/0
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20+
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:102410

On 02.02.2016 01:48, srinivas devaki wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2016 10:54 PM, "Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de 
> <mailto:srkunze@mail.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I didn't express myself well. Would you prefer the sweeping 
> approach in terms of efficiency over how I implemented xheap currently?
> >
>
> complexity wise your approach is the best one of all that I have seen 
> till now
>
> > Without running some benchmarks, I have absolutely no feeling which 
> approach is faster/more memory efficient etc.
> >
>
> this is obviously memory efficient but I don't know whether this 
> approach would be faster than previous approaches, with previous 
> approaches there is no call back into Python code from C code for 
> comparison.
> but this should be faster than HeapDict as HeapDict is directly using 
> its own methods for heappush, heappop etc
>

Yes. So, it remains to be seen until I implemented the sweeping and 
compared them to each other.

> PS: if you have time, could you please review my pull request.
>

Indeed, I am already thinking about it. :)


Best,
Sven