But the sort mutates F...does the setup get executed each time? I thought
it's just at the beginning. So then F gets mutated (sorted) and subsequent
sorts time wrong.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 7:51 AM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 14:04, Elliot Go
sort
time, right, so wouldn't that mess up the benchmark? Or does timeit
separate the times?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 2:22 AM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 03:15, Elliot Gorokhovsky
> <elliot.gorokhov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's an optio
needlessly offensive
> language in his first post.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 09:16:32PM +, Elliot Gorokhovsky wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, benchmarking technique aside,
/sort():", 1-fastlist_time/defaultlist_time)
print("Integer benchmarks")
bench_list(1, 1e7)
bench_list(5, 1e7/5)
bench_list(10, 1e7/10)
bench_list(1000, 1e7/1000)
bench_list(100, 1e7/1e6)
Is that a valid way to benchmark the implementation?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:15 P
nearly the same code?
Anyway, benchmarking technique aside, the point is that it it works well
for small lists (i.e. doesn't affect performance).
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:53 PM Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Elliot Gorokhovsky
> <
odule that subclasses list, so I can't just drop it
into existing code without modification.
Let me know if you have any other questions/suggestions!
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM Elliot Gorokhovsky <
elliot.gorokhov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I posted here a while back as
Hi,
I posted here a while back asking what you guys thought about implementing
radix sort for strings in list.sort(). You gave me a lot of reasons why
that would be a bad idea. However, it got me thinking, and I came up with
something that you may find interesting.
First, some simple benchmark
retty busy...but I'll try to get on this as soon as I can).
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 3:42 PM Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [redirected from python-dev, to python-ideas;
> please send followups only to python-ideas]
>
> [Elliot Gorokhovsky <elgo8...@colorado.edu>]
The sort can be made stable, but that requires the allocation of an
equal-sized auxiliary array. To quote from the paper: "Both list-based and
two-array sorts entail Θ(n) space overhead. That overhead shrinks to
Θ(logn) in American flag sort, which, like quicksort, trades off stability
for space
Thanks for the link. If you look at the conclusion it says "We recommend
American flag sort as an all-round algorithm for sorting strings."
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 11:30 AM Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 2016, at 12:45 AM,
Hello all,
I am interested in making a non-trivial improvement to list.sort(), but
before I put in the work, I want to test the waters and see if this is
something the community would accept. Basically, I want to implement radix
sort for lists of strings. So list.sort() would detect if it is
11 matches
Mail list logo
