«

Hi,

I have to get list of URLs one by one and to find the URLs that I have
more than one time(can't be more than twice).

I thought to put them into binary search tree, this way they'll be
sorted and I'll be able to check if the URL already exist.

Couldn't find any python library that implements trees.
Is there some library of this kind in python? Or can I find it
somewhere else?

wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to get list of URLs one by one and to find the URLs that I have
> more than one time(can't be more than twice).
>
> I thought to put them into binary search tree, this way they'll be
> sorted and I'll be able to check if the URL already exist.
>
> Couldn't find any python library that implements trees.
> Is there some library of this kind in python? Or can I find it
> somewhere else?
>
Put them into a set. You can check for existence (very fast) and at the end it
is easy to sort.

-Larry

On 2007-11-09, Larry Bates <> wrote:
> wrote:
>> I have to get list of URLs one by one and to find the URLs
>> that I have more than one time(can't be more than twice).
>>
>> I thought to put them into binary search tree, this way
>> they'll be sorted and I'll be able to check if the URL already
>> exist.
>>
>> Couldn't find any python library that implements trees. Is
>> there some library of this kind in python? Or can I find it
>> somewhere else?
>
> Put them into a set. You can check for existence (very fast)
> and at the end it is easy to sort.

The set is likely the way to go.

Python's library support for binary search trees consists of the
bisect module.

--
Neil Cerutti
Ask about our plans for owning your home --sign at mortgage company

On Nov 9, 4:06 pm, maxim.no...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to get list of URLs one by one and to find the URLs that I have
> more than one time(can't be more than twice).
>
> I thought to put them into binary search tree, this way they'll be
> sorted and I'll be able to check if the URL already exist.
>
> Couldn't find any python library that implements trees.
> Is there some library of this kind in python? Or can I find it
> somewhere else?

Can you use set() or set.difference()?

a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have to get list of URLs one by one and to find the URLs that I have
> more than one time(can't be more than twice).
>
> I thought to put them into binary search tree, this way they'll be
> sorted and I'll be able to check if the URL already exist.

What about a set ?

s = set()
for url in urls:
if url in s:
print "already have ", url
else:
set.add(url)

On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
<bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr> wrote:
> maxim.no...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I have to get list of URLs one by one and to find the URLs that I have
> > more than one time(can't be more than twice).
>
> > I thought to put them into binary search tree, this way they'll be
> > sorted and I'll be able to check if the URL already exist.
>
> What about a set ?
>
> s = set()
> for url in urls:
> if url in s:
> print "already have ", url
> else:
> set.add(url)

Interesting. For this case I usually used dicts. As in:

d = {}
for url in urls:
if url in d:
print "already have ", url
else:
d[url] = 1

Now, I can see that this method has some superfluous data (the `1`
that is assigned to the dict). So I suppose this is less memory
efficient. But is this slower then? As both implementations use hashes
of the URL to access the data. Just asking out of curiosity

> Now, I can see that this method has some superfluous data (the `1`
> that is assigned to the dict). So I suppose this is less memory
> efficient. But is this slower then? As both implementations use hashes
> of the URL to access the data. Just asking out of curiosity

Performance-wise, there is no difference in the implementations.
What matters when comparing programs one-by-one is how many method
calls you need. In this example, the dictionary is slightly faster
in my measurements, since for the set, you need to perform a lookup
of .add, whereas the access to __setitem__ for the dict need no
additional dictionary lookup.

Regards,
Martin