Nathaniel Smith <njs <at> pobox.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern <at> gmail.com> wrote: > > As valid gets larger, in1d() will catch up but for smallish sizes of > > valid, which I suspect given the "non-numeric" nature of the OP's (Hi, > > Brett!) request, kern_in() is usually better. > > Oh well, I was just guessing based on algorithmic properties. Sounds > like there might be some optimizations possible to in1d then, if > anyone had a reason to care . >
Ideally, I would like in1d to always be the right answer to this problem. It should be easy to put in an if statement to switch to a kern_in()-type function in the case of large ar1 but small ar2. I will do some timing tests and make a patch. Incidentally, the timing tests done when in1d was introduced only considered the case when len(ar1) = len(ar2). In this case the current in_1d is pretty much always faster than kern_in(). Neil _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
