On 29/03/2015 22:19, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 29/03/2015 21:59, BartC wrote:
On 29/03/2015 00:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50 AM, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
Using the OP's algorithm, and testing with the 'hard' puzzle posted
by Ian
Kelly, I got these approximate results:
Python 3.1: 1700 seconds (normal Python interpreter)
PyPy: 93 seconds
C unoptimised: 17 seconds (gcc -O0 32-bit)
C optimised: 3.3 seconds (gcc -O3 32-bit)
(X: 170 seconds)
Nice stats. Any chance you can add CPython 3.4 or 3.5 to that? That's
a pretty old CPython you're using.
I've tried 3.4.3 and it's nearer 1900 seconds!
Which wasn't too surprising as you don't expect new releases to be
faster, they tend to be slower.
I simply do not believe those figures, that's roughly 12% slower. If
that happened in the real world you'd be able to hear the screams of
anguish around the world.
You're right, it's wasn't 12% slower. It was 16%!
I didn't have time to run this very long benchmark so ran a different
algorithm using 3.1, averaging 14.1 seconds for 3 runs. And ran the same
code with 3.4.3, average 16.4 seconds.
Maybe most people don't run intensively computational benchmarks like these.
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
