Łukasz Langa <luk...@langa.pl> added the comment: Dennis, run your benchmarks with --rigorous to avoid "Benchmark hidden because not significant".
I note that the second and third benchmarks aren't useful as written because the iterators are exhausted after first repetition. I could see this in my results, note how the values don't rise with the iterator size: for i in it_10: pass: Mean +- std dev: 25.0 ns +- 0.3 ns for i in it_100: pass: Mean +- std dev: 25.1 ns +- 0.5 ns for i in it_1000: pass: Mean +- std dev: 25.0 ns +- 0.3 ns for i in it_10000: pass: Mean +- std dev: 25.0 ns +- 0.3 ns for i in it_100000: pass: Mean +- std dev: 25.6 ns +- 0.5 ns deque(it_10): Mean +- std dev: 334 ns +- 8 ns deque(it_100): Mean +- std dev: 338 ns +- 9 ns deque(it_1000): Mean +- std dev: 335 ns +- 9 ns deque(it_10000): Mean +- std dev: 336 ns +- 10 ns deque(it_100000): Mean +- std dev: 338 ns +- 11 ns When I modified those to recreate the iterator on every run, the story was much different. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45026> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
