On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:48:28 +0200, Suresh Pillai wrote:
> Okay, please consider this my one absolutely stupid post for the year.
> I'd like to pretend it never happened but unfortunately the web doesn't
> allow that. Having never used sets, I unfort read something tha
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:04:43 +0200, Suresh Pillai wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:44:18 +0200, Suresh Pillai wrote:
>
>> Since I am doing A LOT of loops over the nodes and the number of nodes
>> is also huge, my concern using sets is that in order to iterate over
>> th
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:44:18 +0200, Suresh Pillai wrote:
> Since I am doing A LOT of loops over the nodes and the number of nodes
> is also huge, my concern using sets is that in order to iterate over the
> set in each step of my simulation, the set items need to be converted to
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> If the nodes do not have to be processed in any particular order, then
> you could keep them either in a dict, with the value being either On or
> Off (True,False)(plus connection data) or a pair of sets, one for On and
> one for Off. The a
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:46:56 -0700, Iain King wrote:
> or 3. build a new list every iteration intead of deleting from the old
> one:
>
> while processing:
> new_off_list = []
> for x in off_list:
> if goes_on(x):
> on_list.append(x)
> else:
> new_of
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:22:06 -0600, Matthew Fitzgibbons wrote:
> As for different data structures, it largely depends on how you need to
> access the data. If you don't need to index the data, just loop through
> it, you might try a linked list. The performance hit in (2) is coming
> from the list
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:08:57 -0700, Iain King wrote:
> On Jul 25, 3:39 pm, Suresh Pillai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's a good comparison for the general question I posed. Thanks.
>> Although I do believe lists are less than ideal here and a different
>&g
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:51:42 +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, your example keeps going until it's
> flagged *all* nodes as "on", which, obviously, kills performance for the
> first version as the probability goes down. The OP's question was about
> a single pass (but he
That's a good comparison for the general question I posed. Thanks.
Although I do believe lists are less than ideal here and a different data
structure should be used.
To be more specific to my case:
As mentioned in my original post, I also have the specific condition that
one does not know wh
I am performing simulations on networks (graphs). I have a question on
speed of execution (assuming very ample memory for now). I simplify the
details of my simulation below, as the question I ask applies more
generally than my specific case. I would greatly appreciate general
feedback in te
10 matches
Mail list logo
