On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Sure, but it's no different than doing, e.g.: > list(range(100000000)).sort() > > (don't try this, it just made by computer slow down to a crawl and I had to > kill > -9 the Python interpreter)
Maybe you were running out of RAM? On a 64-bit machine, list(range(10**8)) takes over 3 Gb. For me, x = list(range(10**8)) takes around 6 seconds, and then x.sort() takes around 2 seconds. This is on a machine with 16 Gb of RAM. (Though I do seem to recall that timsort is extra fast for already sorted lists: O(n) rather than O(n log n)?) So I'd say that it *is* different. A million digit integer takes less than half a megabyte of RAM, so a single operation can be horribly slow long before memory limitations are reached. I'd prefer to keep the SIGCHECK unless there's a really compelling advantage to getting rid of it. Mark _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
