Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #61392
| From | Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: squeeze out some performance |
| Date | 2013-12-09 15:54 +0000 |
| References | <ce6477c1-29c0-43b3-9e56-336a5825869b@googlegroups.com> <9df6ccd7-828d-43be-ac49-fe1c6a38bae7@googlegroups.com> <CAPM-O+wyt_7VyO+yFO9eVDUnqJAxr5fa9rAONQHCbFgzkbJdhw@mail.gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3783.1386604487.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 06/12/2013 22:07, Joel Goldstick wrote: .......... >> > > Not that this will speed up your code but you have this: > > if not clockwise: > s = start > start = end > end = s > > Python people would write: > end, start = start, end this works for some small number of variables, but on my machine with python 2.7 I start losing with 4 variables eg > C:\code\optichrome\74663>python -mtimeit -s"a=1;b=2;c=3;d=4" "a,b,c,d=b,c,d,a" > 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.206 usec per loop > > C:\code\optichrome\74663>python -mtimeit -s"a=1;b=2;c=3;d=4" "t=a;a=b;b=c;c=d;d=t" > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.118 usec per loop It doesn't seem to make much difference that the variables are related as I see a similar behaviour for simple assignments > C:\code\optichrome\74663>python -mtimeit -s"a=1;b=2;c=3;d=4;e=5;f=6;g=7;h=8" "a,b,c,d=e,f,g,h" > 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.204 usec per loop > > C:\code\optichrome\74663>python -mtimeit -s"a=1;b=2;c=3;d=4;e=5;f=6;g=7;h=8" "a=e;b=f;c=g;d=h" > 10000000 loops, best of 3: 0.103 usec per loop for less than 4 variables the tuple method is faster. -- Robin Becker
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
squeeze out some performance Robert Voigtländer <r.voigtlaender@gmail.com> - 2013-12-06 00:47 -0800
Re: squeeze out some performance Jeremy Sanders <jeremy@jeremysanders.net> - 2013-12-06 10:46 +0100
Re: squeeze out some performance Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-06 23:13 +1100
Re: squeeze out some performance Robert Voigtländer <r.voigtlaender@gmail.com> - 2013-12-06 08:29 -0800
Re: squeeze out some performance Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-06 16:36 +0000
Re: squeeze out some performance Robert Voigtländer <r.voigtlaender@gmail.com> - 2013-12-06 08:44 -0800
Re: squeeze out some performance John Ladasky <john_ladasky@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-06 08:52 -0800
Re: squeeze out some performance Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-12-06 17:07 -0500
Re: squeeze out some performance Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-06 22:38 +0000
Re: squeeze out some performance Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-12-06 15:01 -0800
Re: squeeze out some performance Robert Voigtländer <r.voigtlaender@gmail.com> - 2013-12-09 06:19 -0800
Re: squeeze out some performance Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-09 14:52 +0000
Re: squeeze out some performance Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2013-12-09 15:54 +0000
Re: squeeze out some performance Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-12-09 15:46 -0500
Re: squeeze out some performance Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2013-12-10 12:54 +0000
Re: squeeze out some performance Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-09 23:57 +0000
Re: squeeze out some performance Robert Voigtländer <r.voigtlaender@gmail.com> - 2013-12-10 04:14 -0800
csiph-web