OK, I ran Peter's add_freq3 and it ran four times on really large dictionaries in about 3000 seconds. So I'd say that at a minimum that's ten times faster than my original function since it ran all last night and didn't finish.
Much obliged, Peter! -Greg On 12/14/05, Gregory Piñero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, that makes sense. I can't wait to run it tonight. Sorry I can't > give you the running time of my original function as it never finished > :-( > > I'll report back the running time of the new function though, assuming > it finishes ;-) > > Thanks again, > > -Greg > > > On 12/14/05, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gregory Piñero wrote: > > > > > Here's a question about your functions. if I only look at the keys in > > > freq2 then won't I miss any keys that are in freq1 and not in freq2? > > > > No. As I start with a copy of freq1, all keys of freq1 are already there. > > There is probably a loop involved, but it in Python's underlying C > > implementation, which is a bit faster. > > > > What is left to do is to (1) add key and value for the 20% of freq2 that are > > not in freq1, and to (2) increase the value for the 80% where the key > > occurs in both freq1 and freq2. This is done by the for-loop. > > > > Peter > > > > -- > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > > > > > -- > Gregory Piñero > Chief Innovation Officer > Blended Technologies > (www.blendedtechnologies.com) > -- Gregory Piñero Chief Innovation Officer Blended Technologies (www.blendedtechnologies.com) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
