Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:31 AM Richard Higginbotham higgi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > That's exactly what I expected. It's the opposite > > though. The time to check one list for all the elements > > Please quote some text to give context. WHAT is exactly what you expected? I expected that reading a directory with millions of files and then checking those against a previously stored list of files would be bound by the file system operations. It was not. I don't remember if I tried hash functions back then or not. The original was lost along with my time tests, metrics, and notes after a house fire.
My recent guess was that set operations would be greater than nonlinear as I expected the size of both lists to play a part in the time complexity. If nothing creating the hash tables would take additional time. Looking at the post by Tim Peters, your self, and others I've come to the conclusion that shouldn't be the case. That seems to hold true when A is small, but not as A increases. It doesn't explain the results so I plan on looking into it further this weekend. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/Q6UJWUICV2NZR34MJ5VT2OEVCC4U7JPU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
