Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > And of course, I was right. My solution seems to be faster than Paul's > one (but slower than bearophile's), be it on small, medium or large lists.
Your version is only fast on lists with a very small number of unique elements. changing mklist to have items = range(64) instead of the 9 item list and re-timing you will get "better" results: A100 (10000 times): 7.63829684258 B100 (10000 times): 1.34028482437 C100 (10000 times): 0.812223911285 A10000 (100 times): 9.78499102592 B10000 (100 times): 1.26520299911 C10000 (100 times): 0.857560873032 A1000000 (10 times): 87.6713900566 B1000000 (10 times): 12.7302949429 C1000000 (10 times): 8.35931396484 -- - Justin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
