John Machin wrote: > Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: >> Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: >> >> > My solution (which may not be the fastest or most effective, but > till >> > now is the shortest <wink> and it works): > > [snip RB] >> >> A recursive solution (around twice as fast as the above, though very >> slow still...) >> > [snip RB2] >> >> Another one: >> > > [snip RB3] > > Dunno what data you are using for timing, but my tests suggest that RB > is fast enough, RB3 is slightly faster, but RB2 is a real dog and > appears to be quadratic [hint: it has that same for-for-for-update > signature found in phase 2 of Xah's effort]. Not only that, but it > seems to be somewhat irregular. Below are some results on trivial test > data: [snip]
Yes, I don't know exactly how I timed this, and I just posted the solutions to show that there are very different solutions possible. They are surely not using the best algorithms, as bearophile's function showed. Reinhold -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
