On 18 October 2015 at 17:41, Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:35 AM, David Mertz <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's interesting about the `self._full` variable slowing it down, I > think > > I'm not surprised (but obviously it depends on just how it's used). But > one > > can also simply define RingBuffer.isfull() using > `self.max==len(self.data)` > > if you prefer that approach. I doubt `myringbuffer.isfull()` is > something > > you need to call in an inner loop. > > > > That said, I think my implementation of RingBuffer would probably look > more > > like (completely untested): > > > > class RingBuffer(object): > > def __init__(self, size_max): > > self.data = [None] * size_max > > self.size_max = size_max > > self.used = 0 > > self.cur = 0 > > def append(self, val): > > self.data[self.cur] = val > > self.cur = (self.cur+1) % self.size_max > > self.used = max(self.used, self.cur+1) > > def isfull(self): > > self.used == self.size_max > > > > Feel free to try this version against whatever benchmark you have in > mind. > > What does this provide that collections.deque(maxlen=size_max) > doesn't? I'm a little lost. > I was merely re-implementing the "clever" code in a slightly less clever way, for the same performance, to demonstrate that there's no need to assign to __class__. collections.deque is about 5x faster. (My simple benchmark tests the cost of x.append(i)) - p > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/pludemann%40google.com >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com