Timeline for Generating 3 combinations in Python
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2015 at 4:35 | vote | accept | CodeYogi | ||
| Oct 13, 2015 at 12:11 | comment | added | Peilonrayz♦ | @CodeYogi If you use the Python version of combinations, then you can see that, your function is faster. For me yours was more than 10 times faster... | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 10:08 | comment | added | CodeYogi | I never wanted to emphasize on it. My bad if that point got highlighted. I wanted if I can improve performance any further. | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 9:50 | comment | added | rahmu | @CodeYogi reinventing is great for understanding, but when you said you're slow compared to the std lib, you're comparing apples to oranges. The standard library is full of optimizations. | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 | comment | added | outoftime |
@CodeYogi 090 elements: 6.353836 26.277946 is best proof of my words. But it is only for cpython not pypy.
|
|
| Oct 13, 2015 at 9:36 | comment | added | outoftime |
I'd like to join discussion with title "std:: or not std::" but we are talking about python, not c++.
|
|
| Oct 13, 2015 at 9:32 | comment | added | CodeYogi | In fact these approach are quite useful when your coding environment doesn't allow external libraries or your use case is quite restricted. | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 9:31 | comment | added | CodeYogi | @JaDogg, reinventing and understanding is quite different things I think. In that manner you shouldn't write any sorting algorithm at all, right? because they are already implemented out there. | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 9:07 | comment | added | JaDogg | You do not really want to reinvent standard library functions because they are pretty nice optimized by c compiler -> Well said | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 8:26 | history | edited | outoftime | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 322 characters in body
|
| Oct 13, 2015 at 7:43 | history | answered | outoftime | CC BY-SA 3.0 |