On 2013-12-12 11:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > In any case, sorting in Python is amazingly fast. You may be > pleasantly surprised that a version that sorts your data, while > nominally O(N log N), may be much faster than an O(N) solution that > doesn't require sorted data. If I were a betting man, I'd be > willing to wager a shiny new dollar[1] that sorting works out > faster for reasonable sized sets of data.
An interesting observation given the "Optimizing list processing" thread you recently opened about algorithms for processing large volumes of data and finding that elbow where two algorithms cross on the performance graph. :-) -tkc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
