vne On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Daniel Stutzbach <stutzb...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In my testing blist.sorteddict was dead last for random keys, and >> wasn't last but was still significantly underperforming for sequential >> keys (outperforming only binary tree and scapegoat tree, behind all >> others): >> >> >> http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/python-tree-and-heap-comparison/2014-03-18/ > > > Could you post the source code for your test tools, so that I can reproduce > them locally and understand the results better? > > I think I'm confused about what you're trying to measure. It looks like the > tests perform get and set operations, neither of which required a sorted > dict. Wouldn't a good comparison of sorted dict types include at least one > operation that relies on the sorted property? Possibly I've misunderstood > how your tests work.
The code is at http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/svn/python-tree-and-heap-comparison/trunk/ You're right, I'm not comparing find_min, find_max, generate_in_order or generate_reverse_order. The first two tend to be the same as find_arbitrary. I've been thinking about trying to import some C extension module trees, and just ignoring them if they fail to import. But I haven't. Trunk only compares pure python implementations - even for treap, which has a cython version. I tossed my changes after checking blist. Trunk does operations/second. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com