Michele Orrù added the comment: woops, sry. Re-posting the benchmark, with three tests: the first one proposed (@abacabadabacaba) with very large sets; another one with smaller sets.
$ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(2000)); l = set(range(20000000))" "s-=l" 100 loops, best of 3: 9.71 usec per loop [48787 refs] $ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(1)); l = set(range(20))" "s-=l" 100 loops, best of 3: 0.366 usec per loop $ hg co -C $ make -j3 ----[!PATCHED]-------------------------------------------------- $ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(2000)); l = set(range(20000000))" "s-=l" 100 loops, best of 3: 665 msec per loop [48787 refs] $ ./python.exe -m timeit -n 100 -s "s= set(range(1)); l = set(range(20))" "s-=l" 100 loops, best of 3: 0.849 usec per loop [48787 refs] ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8425> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
