Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> added the comment: The one in PR 11583 is twice as faster:
>timeit for -> >topsort([(2,11),(9,11),(9,8),(9,10),(10,11),(10,3),(11,7),(11,5),(8,7),(8,3)]) 12.4 µs ± 59.1 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each) >timeit for -> >tsort([(2,11),(9,11),(9,8),(9,10),(10,11),(10,3),(11,7),(11,5),(8,7),(8,3)]) 29.1 µs ± 147 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each) ---------- nosy: +pablogsal _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue17005> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
