Opened 7 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

## #23399 closed Cleanup/optimization (fixed)

# Update int_to_base36

Reported by: | None | Owned by: | None |
---|---|---|---|

Component: | Utilities | Version: | dev |

Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |

Cc: | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed | |

Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |

Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |

Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |

### Description

I propose change function int_to_base36:

def int_to_base36(n): assert isinstance(n, (int, long)) c = '0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' sign = '' if n < 0: sign, n = '-', -n if 0 <= n < 36: return sign + c[n] b36 = '' while n != 0: n, i = divmod(n, 36) b36 = c[i] + b36 return sign + b36

I think that it's better and faster.

### Change History (5)

### comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by

### comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by

It's an interesting idea. For the purposes of demonstration, here's some back-of-the-napkin unscientific benchmarks, from Python 2.7.6, with sys.maxint = 9223372036854775807:

time python baseline.py

import sys print("sys.maxint is: %s" % sys.maxint) for x in xrange(0, 1000000): continue print("Complete")

Consistently yields something about the range:

real 0m0.080s

user 0m0.066s

sys 0m0.012s

the version in django:

time python original.py

import sys from django.utils.http import int_to_base36 print("sys.maxint is: %s" % sys.maxint) for x in xrange(0, 1000000): int_to_base36(i=x) print("Complete")

yields:

real 0m3.337s

user 0m3.314s

sys 0m0.020s

The version proposed by liminspace, adjusted to raise the same TypeErrors as Django's existing one:

import sys from django.utils import six print("sys.maxint is: %s" % sys.maxint) def int_to_base36(n): if n < 0: raise ValueError("Negative base36 conversion input.") if six.PY2: if not isinstance(n, six.integer_types): raise TypeError("Non-integer base36 conversion input.") if n > sys.maxint: raise ValueError("Base36 conversion input too large.") c = '0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' sign = '' if n < 0: sign, n = '-', -n if 0 <= n < 36: return sign + c[n] b36 = '' while n != 0: n, i = divmod(n, 36) b36 = c[i] + b36 return sign + b36 for x in xrange(0, 1000000): int_to_base36(n=x) print("Complete")

yields around:

real 0m2.859s

user 0m2.847s

sys 0m0.010s

So, over the first million smallest integers, there is some small speed-up (takes about 85% of the time), by the look of those numbers.

For the top million (changed to `xrange(maxint - 1000000, 100000)`

, the times seem a little more pronounced (the new version is about 60% of the original's time):

time python baseline.py

real 0m0.069s

user 0m0.060s

sys 0m0.008s

Django's original:

time python original.py

real 0m11.840s

user 0m11.805s

sys 0m0.029s

The new version I pasted above:

time python new.py

real 0m6.897s

user 0m6.877s

sys 0m0.017s

### comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by

kezabelle, try this:

def int_to_base36(n): if n < 0: raise ValueError("Negative base36 conversion input.") if six.PY2: if not isinstance(n, six.integer_types): raise TypeError("Non-integer base36 conversion input.") if n > sys.maxint: raise ValueError("Base36 conversion input too large.") c = '0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' if n < 36: return c[n] b36 = '' while n != 0: n, i = divmod(n, 36) b36 = c[i] + b36 return b36

### comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by

First million:

time python new2.py

real 0m2.682s

user 0m2.667s

sys 0m0.012s

last million:

time python new2a.py

real 0m6.539s

user 0m6.520s

sys 0m0.015s

Also did a quick test of ` assert new_int_to_base36(n=x) == original_int_to_base36(i=x) `

for both the first and last million, which raised no errors.

### comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by

Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|

Status: | new → closed |

**Note:**See TracTickets for help on using tickets.

This implementation isn't backwards compatible with respect to the errors it raises on invalid inputs.

Some benchmarks would be helpful as far as speed goes.