Speed of data structures in python

Steven D'Aprano steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au
Sat Mar 11 06:54:06 CET 2006


On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:06:27 -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:12:30 +1100
> "Steven D'Aprano" <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:24:46 +1100, Dave wrote:
>> > Hi. I am learning PyOpenGL and I am working with a
>> > largish fixed scene   composed of several thousand
>> > GLtriangles. I plan to store the coords and   normals in
>> > a NumPy array.
>> > 
>> > Is this the fastest solution in python? 
> 
>> Optimization without measurement is at best a waste of
>> time and at worst counter-productive. Why don't you time
>> your code and see if it is fast enough?
>> 
>> See the timeit module, and the profiler.
> 
> Talk about knee-jerk reactions. ;-)

Yes, let's.

> It's a *3D animation* module -- of course it's going to be
> time-critical.  Sheesh.  Now *that* is stating the obvious.

Did I say it wasn't? I asked if the current solution is fast enough. If
the current solution is fast enough, then why waste time trying to speed
it up? Does the Original Poster think that PCs will get slower in the
future?


> The obvious solution is actually a list of tuples. 

But that's not the solution being asked about, nor did I suggest it.


> But
> it's very possible that that won't be fast enough, so the
> NumPy approach may be a significant speedup. I doubt you
> need more than that, though.

I didn't argue against the NumPy approach. I suggested that, instead of
*asking* if there was something faster, the O.P. should actually *try it*
and see if it is fast enough.

If you think that is bad advice, please tell us what you consider good
advice.



-- 
Steven.




More information about the Python-list mailing list