Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Ok, here are the benchmark results here with a 1-byte separator:
10 x 10 0.244 usec 0.202 usec +21% 100 x 10 0.325 usec 0.326 usec -0% 1000 x 10 0.691 usec 0.689 usec +0% 10 x 1000 18.2 usec 14.2 usec +28% 100 x 1000 39.8 usec 40.6 usec -2% 1000 x 1000 94.6 usec 96 usec -1% and with an empty separator: 10 x 10 0.245 usec 0.198 usec +24% 100 x 10 0.335 usec 0.286 usec +17% 1000 x 10 0.637 usec 0.593 usec +7% 10 x 1000 18.9 usec 14.1 usec +34% 100 x 1000 40.3 usec 36.2 usec +11% 1000 x 1000 93.7 usec 96.9 usec -3% (Core i5 2500K, 64-bit, gcc) I would say the empty separator case is interesting, because a common use case for bytes.join() is indeed fast concatenation. However, the 1-byte separator case could be dropped, which would simplify the patch and the heuristic. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12805> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
