Anton Rolls wrote: > I think it should be faster this way, too, > although it may not matter.
Just for those interested ... >> a: [ a d e be e sn js am xmed dms d d a s e d s a s e s sa s d f de e s s dd fa s d d x cfas sd sd fa sd fas df asdf sd ] == [a d e be e sn js am xmed dms d d a s e d s a s e s sa s d f de e s s dd fa s d d x cfas sd sd fa sd fas df asdf sd] >> profiler/test [ unique sort copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:04.271148] >> profiler/test [ unique sort copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:04.794179] >> profiler/test [ unique sort copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:04.29976] >> profiler/test [ sort unique copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:03.604301] >> profiler/test [ sort unique copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:03.57617] >> profiler/test [ sort unique copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:03.555364] >> profiler/test [ sort unique copy a ] 10000 == [0:00:03.681827] Of course this isn't really excessive testing, but it hints that you may be right. Kind regards, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
