Size: 864
Comment:
|
Size: 1380
Comment:
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 34: | Line 34: |
Are you guys kidding? The whole page is contrieved. Correct implementation of "join" is: {{{ from time import time t = time() s = 'lksdajflakjdsflku09uweoir' r = [s] for x in range(40): r.append(s[len(s)/2:]) s = "".join(r) print 'duration:', time()-t }}} which gives on PythonWin 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 09:34:21) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 execution times: {{{ 1st duration: 54.4060001373 Last duration: 0.0160000324249 }}} -- -- MikeRovner [[DateTime(2005-08-02T10:19:06Z)]] |
Counter to the PythonSpeed/PerformanceTips, on python 2.4 the following string concatenation is almost twice as fast:
as:
On the win32 Python 2.4 I'm seeing the join sample above complete in less than half the time of the concatenating sample.
- -db
Usually the join() is located outside the loop, that code makes this extremely hard though (becuase of the self-referencing of the generated string). But that situation is not the norm. -- JürgenHermann DateTime(2005-08-01T06:07:51Z)
Are you guys kidding? The whole page is contrieved. Correct implementation of "join" is:
from time import time t = time() s = 'lksdajflakjdsflku09uweoir' r = [s] for x in range(40): r.append(s[len(s)/2:]) s = "".join(r) print 'duration:', time()-t
which gives on PythonWin 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 09:34:21) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 execution times:
1st duration: 54.4060001373 Last duration: 0.0160000324249