Ruben Vorderman <r.h.p.vorder...@lumc.nl> added the comment:
Sorry for the spam. I see I made a typo in the timeit script. Next time I will be more dilligent when making these kinds of reports and triple checking it before hand, and sending it once. I used -c instead of -s and now all the setup time is also included. This confounds the results. The proper test commands should be: python -m timeit -s "from bytes_sort import bytes_sort, bytearray_sort_inplace" "bytes_sort(b'My string here')" python -m timeit "bytes(sorted(b'My string here'))" Using just sorted, to purely compare the sorting algorithms without the overhead of creating a new bytes object. python -m timeit "sorted(b'My string here')" Correct comparison results # String = b'' using bytes(sorted: 188 nsec using sorted: 108 nsec using byte_sort: 125 nsec # Some overhead here, setting up the countarray # String = b'abc' using bytes(sorted: 252 nsec using sorted: 145 nsec using byte_sort: 136 nsec # Overhead compared to sorted already negated when sorting 3 items(!) # String = b'Let\'s test a proper string now. One that has some value to be sorted.' using bytes(sorted: 1830 nsec (reported as 1.83 usec) using sorted: 1550 nsec (reported as 1.55 usec) using byte_sort: 220 nsec ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45902> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
