On 07/17/2017 09:06 PM, David Mertz wrote:
On Jul 17, 2017 7:56 PM, "Ethan Furman" <et...@stoneleaf.us <mailto:et...@stoneleaf.us>> wrote:On 07/17/2017 06:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:01:58PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: Guido has decreed that namedtuple shall be reimplemented with speed in mind. I haven't timed it (I'm hoping somebody will volunteer to be the bench mark guru), I'll offer my NamedTuple implementation from my aenum [1] library. With respect Ethan, if you're going to offer up NamedTuple as a faster version of namedtuple, you should at least do a quick proof of concept to demonstrate that it actually *is* faster. I suck at benchmarking, so thank you for providing those quick-and-dirty hints. Full bench marking can wait, but you should be able to do at least something like: python3 -m timeit --setup "from collections import namedtuple" \ "K = namedtuple('K', 'a b c')" 546 usec versus python3 -m timeit --setup "from aenum import NamedTuple" \ "K = NamedTuple('K', 'a b c')" 250 usec So it seems to be faster! :)
Can you try across a range of tuple sizes? E.g. what about with 100 items? 1000?
I tried 26 and 52 (which really seems unlikely for a named tuple), and NamedTuple was consistently faster by about 250 usec. Using a metaclass is off the table, but this is still interesting data for me. :)
-- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
