So it looks like using the set built-in beats both sets.Set() and dict.
The other thing is there's probably very few cases where you'd want to unique-ify a list AND care about the order of that list at the same time. Removing duplicate transmissions is in that category (probably ought to fix your protocol if that's the case, though), but if there's others I can't think of them.
Comment
Alright, so my list of changes:
Don't use sets.Set, use set built-in for all functions.
Use Andrew Dalke's f5() (though returning a generator is not what was required, reworked to return a list using list.append)
Use my f7(), which is:
def f7(seq):
....return {}.fromkeys(seq).keys()
Use Dave Kirby's f7() as f8().
Modify the test case to be huge:
blahlist = range(100000)
testdata = map(lambda a: a % 3, blahlist) + blahlist
Stop using f2() and f4(), they lose every time.
Results (old test case on the right):
* f5 54.688 --- 0.328
* f8 43.797 --- 0.297
f1 32.047 --- 0.156
f3 24.14 --- 0.157
f6 13.531 --- 0.14
f7 14.251 --- 0.156
So it looks like using the set built-in beats both sets.Set() and dict.
The other thing is there's probably very few cases where you'd want to unique-ify a list AND care about the order of that list at the same time. Removing duplicate transmissions is in that category (probably ought to fix your protocol if that's the case, though), but if there's others I can't think of them.