Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3123.1344548888.4697.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=123.192.83.145; posting-account=5JdMBQoAAABHnS4mjpqEzxnmWtgiiVNw
References: <930ab3d8-4ab9-446d-9970-ee811eb70a44@googlegroups.com> <F1B463BB-19A6-4DB1-99B3-929CCBFB5920@gmail.com> <50241F14.2060209@tim.thechases.com> <36EA3847-6713-4C12-B47B-9B5E10325F00@gmail.com> <502429C3.5000600@tim.thechases.com> <583C055C-9E99-4EAC-8F3A-D578C399826E@gmail.com> <mailman.3123.1344548888.4697.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets.
From: 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: d@davea.name, giuseppe.amatulli@gmail.com, python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.3171.1344620771.4697.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:26884

Dave Angel=E6=96=BC 2012=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8810=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=
=BA=94UTC+8=E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=885=E6=99=8247=E5=88=8645=E7=A7=92=E5=AF=AB=E9=
=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> On 08/09/2012 05:34 PM, Roman Vashkevich wrote:
>=20
> > Actually, they are different.
>=20
> > Put a dict.{iter}items() in an O(k^N) algorithm and make it a hundred t=
housand entries, and you will feel the difference.
>=20
> > Dict uses hashing to get a value from the dict and this is why it's O(1=
).
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Sure, that's why
>=20
>=20
>=20
> for key in dict:
>=20
> 	print key[0], key[1], dict[key]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> is probably slower than
>=20
>=20
>=20
> for (edge1, edge2), cost in d.iteritems(): # or .items()
>=20
>   print edge1, edge2, cost
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> So, the latter is both faster and easier to read.  Why are you arguing ag=
ainst it?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Also, please stop top-posting.  It's impolite here, and makes it much har=
der to figure out who is saying what, in what order.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> DaveA

OK, lets estimate the hash colision rate first.

For those items hashed to the same key, I'll store a sorted list with a
known lenth m to be accessed in O(LOG(M)).=20

Of couse another hash can be attatched.