range question, compared to Smalltalk
fb at frank-buss.de
Wed Aug 28 12:13:40 EDT 2002
"Bjorn Pettersen" <BPettersen at NAREX.com> wrote:
> That, of course, depends <wink>. On my machine range is faster for lists
> up to ~1500 items and comparable to xrange up to ~17000 items... Test
> program below.
Do you know the german saying "Wer misst misst Mist" (who measures
measures muck) ? :-)
Looks like it's highly optimized for loops and I can use it for this
purpose. But lets try this code:
rstart = time.clock()
for count in xrange(1, 10000): random.choice(range(count))
rtime = time.clock() - rstart
xstart = time.clock()
for count in xrange(1, 10000): random.choice(xrange(count))
xtime = time.clock() - xstart
if rtime < xtime:
winner = 'range'
winner = 'xrange'
print '%8d %.3f %.3f %15s' % (count, rtime, xtime, winner)
The output on my computer:
9999 2.872 0.183 xrange
So xrange is 15 times faster than range for this example.
Frank Buß, fb at frank-buss.de
More information about the Python-list