On 31.01.2016 05:59, srinivas devaki wrote:
@Sven
actually you are not sweeping at all, as i remember from my last post
what i meant by sweeping is periodically deleting the elements which
were marked as popped items.
Exactly.
Maybe I didn't express myself well. Would you prefer the sweeping
approach in terms of efficiency over how I implemented xheap currently?
Without running some benchmarks, I have absolutely no feeling which
approach is faster/more memory efficient etc.
kudos on that __setitem__ technique,
instead of using references to the items like in HeapDict, it is
brilliant of you to simply use __setitem__
Thanks. :)
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote:
Hi again,
as the topic of the old thread actually was fully discussed, I dare to open
a new one.
I finally managed to finish my heap implementation. You can find it at
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/xheap + https://github.com/srkunze/xheap.
I described my motivations and design decisions at
http://srkunze.blogspot.com/2016/01/fast-object-oriented-heap-implementation.html
@Cem
You've been worried about a C implementation. I can assure you that I did
not intend to rewrite the incredibly fast and well-tested heapq
implementation. I just re-used it.
I would really be grateful for your feedback as you have first-hand
experience with heaps.
@srinivas
You might want to have a look at the removal implementation. Do you think it
would be wiser/faster to switch for the sweeping approach?
I plan to publish some benchmarks to compare heapq and xheap.
@all
What's the best/standardized tool in Python to perform benchmarking? Right
now, I use a self-made combo of unittest.TestCase and time.time + proper
formatting.
Best,
Sven
PS: fixing some weird typos and added missing part.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
