[nha pham <phq...@gmail.com>] > Thank you very much. I am very happy that I got a reply from Tim Peter.
My pleasure to speak with you too :-) > You are correct, my mistake. > > The python code should be: > for i in range(low+1,high): //because we already add > data[low] > x = data[i] > if x >= data[i-1]: > > After I fix it, here is the result: > > random array 10^6: > Old binsort: 1.3322 > New binsort: 1.0015 > ratio: 0.33 > > You are right, it is not ten times faster anymore. I will update other > results soon. > > I do check the result of two sorting methods many times to make sure they > are the same. It is just because I do not know how to put assert into the > timeit.Timer class. `assert` is just another Python statement. You simply add it to the code - there's nothing tricky about this. You could, e.g., simply copy and paste the `assert`s I suggested last time. Before you do, trying adding `print index` to your inner loops, and make SIZE much smaller (say, 1000) so you're not overwhelmed with output. You'll be surprised by what you see on the second (and following) CHUNKs. For example, in both `sample` and `new` it will print 900 ninety nine times in a row when doing the last CHUNK. The code still isn't doing what you intend. Until it does, timing it makes little sense :-) > I am pretty sure about this. Note that I'm talking about the Python code here, the code you run through timeit. You cannot have checked the results of running _that_ specific code, because it doesn't work at all. You may have checked _other_ code many times. We may get to that later, but since I speak Python, I'm not going to understand what you're doing until we have Python code that works ;-) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
