@CodeMonkey已经给出了答案,但可能有趣的是要注意你的第一个函数可以改进,以便运行速度提高20%:
import time, random
def scoring1(seq):
score=0
for i in range(len(seq)):
if seq[i]=='0':
score+=1
return score
def scoring2(seq):
score=0
for x in seq:
score += (x =='0')
return score
def scoring3(seq):
score = 0
score = seq.count('0')
return score
def test(n):
seq = ''.join(random.choice(['0','1']) for i in range(n))
functions = [scoring1,scoring2,scoring3]
for i,f in enumerate(functions):
start = time.clock()
s = f(seq)
elapsed = time.clock() - start
print('scoring' + str(i+1) + ': ' + str(s) + ' computed in ' + str(elapsed) + ' seconds')
test(10**7)
典型输出:
scoring1: 5000742 computed in 0.9651326495293333 seconds
scoring2: 5000742 computed in 0.7998054195159483 seconds
scoring3: 5000742 computed in 0.03732172598339578 seconds
前两种方法都被内置的count()所震撼.
故事的道德:当您没有使用已经优化的内置方法时,您需要优化自己的代码.