> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:12, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:37:02 +0000 > Barry Scott <ba...@barrys-emacs.org> wrote: >> I wondered what the performance would be and tested the following code: >> > [...] >> >> it outputs this for my with python 3.6.0 >> >> 10000 >> key 0.010628s 10000 calls >> lt 0.053690s 119886 calls >> >> It seems that providing a key is ~5 times faster the depending on __lt__. >> (I even used a short circuit to se if __lt__ could beat key). > > Thanks for taking the time to write a benchmark. I'm not surprised > by the results (and your __lt__ method isn't even complicated: the gap > could be very much wider). There is more to Python performance than > aggregate big-O algorithmic complexity.
I was surprised by the huge difference. I was expecting a closer race. For the record I think that a __sort_key__ is not a good idea as it is so easy to do as I did and define key methods on the class, without the limit of one such method. Barry > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
