Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
Subject: Re: Python Interview Questions
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:27:46 -0500
References: <1193768041.349129.26350@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <55443eb7-847c-4f4c-8d04-1e6b507aac00@googlegroups.com> <50a8acdc$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <roy-EFE1F1.08532518112012@news.panix.com> <50a911ec$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <roy-B2D5FF.12535018112012@news.panix.com> <50a97de0$0$29983$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <roy-BD53B0.21093618112012@news.panix.com> <k8c65l$hmb$1@ger.gmane.org> <CALwzidnr-6pA9_MRZFixOvT--Yaa9UBU+9+7F0V9o+20Pg=gpg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
In-Reply-To: <CALwzidnr-6pA9_MRZFixOvT--Yaa9UBU+9+7F0V9o+20Pg=gpg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1353313685.29569.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 106
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:33535

On 11/19/2012 1:01 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:

> than tuple access.  Tuples are as fast as or faster than lists, pretty
> much universally.  They seem to have closed the gap a bit in
> Python 3.3, though, as the following timings show.  For one-shot
> construction, tuples seem to be more efficient for short sequences,
> but then lists win for longer sequences, although not by much.  Of
> course, lists are always going to be much slower if you build them up
> with appends and extends.

Interesting results. But what system (hardware, os). These sorts of 
times tend to vary with the system.
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(10)" "tuple(x)"
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.773 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(10)" "list(x)"
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.879 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(100)" "tuple(x)"
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 2.88 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(100)" "list(x)"
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 2.63 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(1000)" "tuple(x)"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 37.4 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(1000)" "list(x)"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 36.2 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(10000)" "tuple(x)"
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 418 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = range(10000)" "list(x)"
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 410 usec per loop
>
>
> For iteration, tuples are consistently 7-8% faster.
>
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = tuple(range(10))" "for i in x: pass"
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.467 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = list(range(10))" "for i in x: pass"
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.498 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = tuple(range(100))" "for i in x: pass"
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 3.31 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = list(range(100))" "for i in x: pass"
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 3.56 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = tuple(range(1000))" "for i in x: pass"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 31.6 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = list(range(1000))" "for i in x: pass"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 34.3 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = tuple(range(10000))" "for i in x: pass"
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 318 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x = list(range(10000))" "for i in x: pass"
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 341 usec per loop
>
>
> For direct item access, tuples seem to be about 2-3% faster.
>
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = tuple(range(10)); g
> = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.67 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = list(range(10)); g
> = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.674 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = tuple(range(100));
> g = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 4.52 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = list(range(100)); g
> = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 100000 loops, best of 3: 4.65 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = tuple(range(1000));
> g = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 43.2 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = list(range(1000));
> g = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 43.7 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x =
> tuple(range(10000)); g = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 422 usec per loop
>
> C:\>python -m timeit -s "import operator as o; x = list(range(10000));
> g = o.itemgetter(*range(len(x)))" "g(x)"
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 447 usec per loop
>


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy