list.sort(func) speed
Peter Otten
__peter__ at web.de
Sun Aug 31 08:20:46 EDT 2003
mackstann wrote:
> So basename() is not the bottleneck, but accounts for perhaps 1/6th of
> the time needed overall. I just wonder if the other 5/6th could be
> reduced further by doing something that I'm not thinking of.
I've tinkered with your code a bit and could not come up with something
faster :-(
However, your songs seem to correspond to files, so why not store them in
your list as (filename, directory) or (filename, fullpath) tuples in the
first place?
Personally, I would go with a Song class, where the artist, length etc.
could successively be added, but that would rather be trading speed for
features...
Peter
More information about the Python-list
mailing list