- f1, f3 and f9 aren't quite right. They don't return a list but a "dict_keys" view object, which isn't fair, as that takes only O(1) time.
- What makes you think f9 doesn't preserve order? I don't see why it wouldn't, and it did preserve order in some tests I just did, including your script (after fixing the "dict_keys" issue by wrapping "list(...)" around it).
- In the comments under Raymond's answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/8220943/1672429 he also very strongly suggested using *min*: "Use the min() rather than the average of the timings. That is a recommendation from me, from Tim Peters, and from Guido van Rossum. The fastest time represents the best an algorithm can perform when the caches are loaded and the system isn't busy with other tasks. All the timings are noisy -- the fastest time is the least noisy. It is easy to show that the fastest timings are the most reproducible and therefore the most useful when timing two different implementations."
Comment
- f1, f3 and f9 aren't quite right. They don't return a list but a "dict_keys" view object, which isn't fair, as that takes only O(1) time.
- What makes you think f9 doesn't preserve order? I don't see why it wouldn't, and it did preserve order in some tests I just did, including your script (after fixing the "dict_keys" issue by wrapping "list(...)" around it).
- In the comments under Raymond's answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/8220943/1672429 he also very strongly suggested using *min*: "Use the min() rather than the average of the timings. That is a recommendation from me, from Tim Peters, and from Guido van Rossum. The fastest time represents the best an algorithm can perform when the caches are loaded and the system isn't busy with other tasks. All the timings are noisy -- the fastest time is the least noisy. It is easy to show that the fastest timings are the most reproducible and therefore the most useful when timing two different implementations."