Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #87668

Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs?

Show key headers only | View raw

"Ian Kelly" <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:CALwzidmNDcSvER7S6inEaVZA=DHUrDX1KzL-WRVwhd=o3_LvWA@mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Frank Millman <frank@chagford.com> 
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
>>
>> However, to go back to the original example, we want to compare a dict
>> comprehension with a dict() constructor using a generator expression.
>>
>> Let's see if I have got this one right -
>>
>> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x=range(65, 91); y=[chr(z) for z in x]" 
>> "dict((a,
>> b) for a, b in zip(x, y))"
>> 10000 loops, best of 3: 49.6 usec per loop
>>
>> C:\>python -m timeit -s "x=range(65, 91); y=[chr(z) for z in x]" "{a: b 
>> for
>> a, b in zip(x, y)}"
>> 10000 loops, best of 3: 25.8 usec per loop
>
> Why did you revert back to the no-op generator expression in the first
> case instead of the more efficient dict(zip(x, y))?

Firstly, I just want to emphasise that I am not trying to prove anything 
here, I am trying to learn something.

Why do you call it a no-op? I understood your previous point that a 
generator in the setup statement is exhausted after the first execution, but 
this is in the run-time statement, so I thought it would be executed every 
time.

If one does not need any 'comprehension' functionality, I agree that 
dict(zip(x, y)) is the way to go.

However, if you do need a comprehension, Paul questioned why a special dict 
comprehension was introduced when you can easily use a generator expression.

I ran the timing tests to compare the two, and I was surprised to see such a 
difference. However, you have already pointed out one case where I was not 
comparing apples and apples, and it is quite possible that I have stumbled 
across another one.

I read Lele's post where he pointed out that part of the difference is 
explained by the fact that dict() involves a function call, whereas {} does 
not. However, this does not seem to explain the entire difference.

Frank

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2015-03-16 07:25 +0200
  Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-15 23:22 -0700
    Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2015-03-16 10:30 +0200
      Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 01:38 -0700
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2015-03-16 11:01 +0200
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 09:57 -0600
          Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 15:41 -0700
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2015-03-17 08:44 +0200
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it> - 2015-03-17 15:06 +0100
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 09:48 -0600
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2015-03-18 10:01 +0200
        Re: Dict comprehensions - improvement to docs? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 02:39 -0600

csiph-web