Are list-comprehensions and functional functions faster than "for loops"?
Question:
In terms of performance in Python, is a list-comprehension, or functions like map(), filter() and reduce() faster than a for loop? Why, technically, they run in a C speed, while the for loop runs in the python virtual machine speed?.
Suppose that in a game that I’m developing I need to draw complex and huge maps using for loops. This question would be definitely relevant, for if a list-comprehension, for example, is indeed faster, it would be a much better option in order to avoid lags (Despite the visual complexity of the code).
Answers:
If you check the info on python.org, you can see this summary:
Version Time (seconds)
Basic loop 3.47
Eliminate dots 2.45
Local variable & no dots 1.79
Using map function 0.54
But you really should read the above article in details to understand the cause of the performance difference.
I also strongly suggest you should time your code by using timeit. At the end of the day, there can be a situation where, for example, you may need to break out of for loop when a condition is met. It could potentially be faster than finding out the result by calling map.
The following are rough guidelines and educated guesses based on experience. You should timeit or profile your concrete use case to get hard numbers, and those numbers may occasionally disagree with the below.
A list comprehension is usually a tiny bit faster than the precisely equivalent for loop (that actually builds a list), most likely because it doesn’t have to look up the list and its append method on every iteration. However, a list comprehension still does a bytecode-level loop:
>>> dis.dis(<the code object for `[x for x in range(10)]`>)
1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
3 LOAD_FAST 0 (.0)
>> 6 FOR_ITER 12 (to 21)
9 STORE_FAST 1 (x)
12 LOAD_FAST 1 (x)
15 LIST_APPEND 2
18 JUMP_ABSOLUTE 6
>> 21 RETURN_VALUE
Using a list comprehension in place of a loop that doesn’t build a list, nonsensically accumulating a list of meaningless values and then throwing the list away, is often slower because of the overhead of creating and extending the list. List comprehensions aren’t magic that is inherently faster than a good old loop.
As for functional list processing functions: While these are written in C and probably outperform equivalent functions written in Python, they are not necessarily the fastest option. Some speed up is expected if the function is written in C too. But most cases using a lambda (or other Python function), the overhead of repeatedly setting up Python stack frames etc. eats up any savings. Simply doing the same work in-line, without function calls (e.g. a list comprehension instead of map or filter) is often slightly faster.
Suppose that in a game that I’m developing I need to draw complex and huge maps using for loops. This question would be definitely relevant, for if a list-comprehension, for example, is indeed faster, it would be a much better option in order to avoid lags (Despite the visual complexity of the code).
Chances are, if code like this isn’t already fast enough when written in good non-“optimized” Python, no amount of Python level micro optimization is going to make it fast enough and you should start thinking about dropping to C. While extensive micro optimizations can often speed up Python code considerably, there is a low (in absolute terms) limit to this. Moreover, even before you hit that ceiling, it becomes simply more cost efficient (15% speedup vs. 300% speed up with the same effort) to bite the bullet and write some C.
You ask specifically about map(), filter() and reduce(), but I assume you want to know about functional programming in general. Having tested this myself on the problem of computing distances between all points within a set of points, functional programming (using the starmap function from the built-in itertools module) turned out to be slightly slower than for-loops (taking 1.25 times as long, in fact). Here is the sample code I used:
import itertools, time, math, random
class Point:
def __init__(self,x,y):
self.x, self.y = x, y
point_set = (Point(0, 0), Point(0, 1), Point(0, 2), Point(0, 3))
n_points = 100
pick_val = lambda : 10 * random.random() - 5
large_set = [Point(pick_val(), pick_val()) for _ in range(n_points)]
# the distance function
f_dist = lambda x0, x1, y0, y1: math.sqrt((x0 - x1) ** 2 + (y0 - y1) ** 2)
# go through each point, get its distance from all remaining points
f_pos = lambda p1, p2: (p1.x, p2.x, p1.y, p2.y)
extract_dists = lambda x: itertools.starmap(f_dist,
itertools.starmap(f_pos,
itertools.combinations(x, 2)))
print('Distances:', list(extract_dists(point_set)))
t0_f = time.time()
list(extract_dists(large_set))
dt_f = time.time() - t0_f
Is the functional version faster than the procedural version?
def extract_dists_procedural(pts):
n_pts = len(pts)
l = []
for k_p1 in range(n_pts - 1):
for k_p2 in range(k_p1, n_pts):
l.append((pts[k_p1].x - pts[k_p2].x) ** 2 +
(pts[k_p1].y - pts[k_p2].y) ** 2)
return l
t0_p = time.time()
list(extract_dists_procedural(large_set))
# using list() on the assumption that
# it eats up as much time as in the functional version
dt_p = time.time() - t0_p
f_vs_p = dt_p / dt_f
if f_vs_p >= 1.0:
print('Time benefit of functional progamming:', f_vs_p,
'times as fast for', n_points, 'points')
else:
print('Time penalty of functional programming:', 1 / f_vs_p,
'times as slow for', n_points, 'points')
I wrote a simple script that test the speed and this is what I found out. Actually for loop was fastest in my case. That really suprised me, check out bellow (was calculating sum of squares).
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print (datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next**2, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = 0
for i in numbers:
i = i**2
a += i
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
sqrt = lambda x: x**2
return sum(map(sqrt, numbers))
def square_sum4(numbers):
return(sum([int(i)**2 for i in numbers]))
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
0:00:00.302000 #Reduce
0:00:00.144000 #For loop
0:00:00.318000 #Map
0:00:00.390000 #List comprehension
Adding a twist to Alphii answer, actually the for loop would be second best and about 6 times slower than map
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print (datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next**2, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = 0
for i in numbers:
a += i**2
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
a = 0
map(lambda x: a+x**2, numbers)
return a
def square_sum4(numbers):
a = 0
return [a+i**2 for i in numbers]
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
Main changes have been to eliminate the slow sum calls, as well as the probably unnecessary int() in the last case. Putting the for loop and map in the same terms makes it quite fact, actually. Remember that lambdas are functional concepts and theoretically shouldn’t have side effects, but, well, they can have side effects like adding to a.
Results in this case with Python 3.6.1, Ubuntu 14.04, Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz
0:00:00.257703 #Reduce
0:00:00.184898 #For loop
0:00:00.031718 #Map
0:00:00.212699 #List comprehension
I have managed to modify some of @alpiii’s code and discovered that List comprehension is a little faster than for loop. It might be caused by int(), it is not fair between list comprehension and for loop.
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print (datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next*next, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = []
for i in numbers:
a.append(i*2)
a = sum(a)
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
sqrt = lambda x: x*x
return sum(map(sqrt, numbers))
def square_sum4(numbers):
return(sum([i*i for i in numbers]))
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
0:00:00.101122 #Reduce
0:00:00.089216 #For loop
0:00:00.101532 #Map
0:00:00.068916 #List comprehension
I modified @Alisa’s code and used cProfile to show why list comprehension is faster:
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def reduce_(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum + next * next, numbers, 0)
def for_loop(numbers):
a = []
for i in numbers:
a.append(i*2)
a = sum(a)
return a
def map_(numbers):
sqrt = lambda x: x*x
return sum(map(sqrt, numbers))
def list_comp(numbers):
return(sum([i*i for i in numbers]))
funcs = [
reduce_,
for_loop,
map_,
list_comp
]
if __name__ == "__main__":
# [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3]
import cProfile
for f in funcs:
print('=' * 25)
print("Profiling:", f.__name__)
print('=' * 25)
pr = cProfile.Profile()
for i in range(10**6):
pr.runcall(f, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
pr.create_stats()
pr.print_stats()
Here’s the results:
=========================
Profiling: reduce_
=========================
11000000 function calls in 1.501 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.162 0.000 1.473 0.000 profiling.py:4(reduce_)
8000000 0.461 0.000 0.461 0.000 profiling.py:5(<lambda>)
1000000 0.850 0.000 1.311 0.000 {built-in method _functools.reduce}
1000000 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
=========================
Profiling: for_loop
=========================
11000000 function calls in 1.372 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.879 0.000 1.344 0.000 profiling.py:7(for_loop)
1000000 0.145 0.000 0.145 0.000 {built-in method builtins.sum}
8000000 0.320 0.000 0.320 0.000 {method 'append' of 'list' objects}
1000000 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
=========================
Profiling: map_
=========================
11000000 function calls in 1.470 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.264 0.000 1.442 0.000 profiling.py:14(map_)
8000000 0.387 0.000 0.387 0.000 profiling.py:15(<lambda>)
1000000 0.791 0.000 1.178 0.000 {built-in method builtins.sum}
1000000 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
=========================
Profiling: list_comp
=========================
4000000 function calls in 0.737 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.318 0.000 0.709 0.000 profiling.py:18(list_comp)
1000000 0.261 0.000 0.261 0.000 profiling.py:19(<listcomp>)
1000000 0.131 0.000 0.131 0.000 {built-in method builtins.sum}
1000000 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
IMHO:
reduce and map are in general pretty slow. Not only that, using sum on the iterators that map returned is slow, compared to suming a listfor_loop uses append, which is of course slow to some extent- list-comprehension not only spent the least time building the list, it also makes
sum much quicker, in contrast to map
I was looking for some performance information regarding ‘for’ loops and ‘list comprehension’ and stumbled upon this topic.
It has been a few months since Python 3.11 release (October 2022) and one of the main features of Python 3.11 was speed improvements.
https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3110/
The Faster CPython Project is already yielding some exciting results. Python 3.11 is up to 10-60% faster than Python 3.10. On average, we measured a 1.22x speedup on the standard benchmark suite. See Faster CPython for details.
I ran the same code originally posted by Alphi and then "twisted" by jjmerelo. Python3.10 and Python3.11 results below:
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print(datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next**2, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = 0
for i in numbers:
a += i**2
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
a = 0
map(lambda x: a+x**2, numbers)
return a
def square_sum4(numbers):
a = 0
return [a+i**2 for i in numbers]
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
I haven’t calculated the exact percentage improvement but it is clear that the performance gain – at least in this particular instance – seems to be impressive (3 to 4 times faster) with the exception of ‘map’ which has negligible performance improvement.
#Python 3.10
0:00:00.221134 #Reduce
0:00:00.186307 #For
0:00:00.024311 #Map
0:00:00.206454 #List comprehension
#python3.11
0:00:00.072550 #Reduce
0:00:00.037168 #For
0:00:00.021702 #Map
0:00:00.058655 #List Comprehension
Note: I ran this on a Kali Linux VM running under Windows 11 using WSL. I’m not sure if this code might perform even better if run natively (bare metal) on a Linux instance.
My Kali Linux VM specs below:
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
Address sizes: 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
Model name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700T CPU @ 2.80GHz
CPU family: 6
Model: 94
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 4
Socket(s): 1
Stepping: 3
BogoMIPS: 5615.99
Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc rep_good nopl xtopology cpuid pni pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16 pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt aes xsave avx f16c rdrand hypervisor lahf_lm abm 3dnowprefetch invpcid_single pti ssbd ibrs ibpb stibp tpr_shadow vnmi ept vpid ept_ad fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm rdseed adx smap clflushopt xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves flush_l1d arch_capabilities
Virtualization: VT-x
Hypervisor vendor: Microsoft
Virtualization type: full
L1d cache: 128 KiB (4 instances)
L1i cache: 128 KiB (4 instances)
L2 cache: 1 MiB (4 instances)
L3 cache: 8 MiB (1 instance)
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: KVM: Mitigation: VMX disabled
Vulnerability L1tf: Mitigation; PTE Inversion; VMX conditional cache flushes, SMT vulnerable
Vulnerability Mds: Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers attempted, no microcode; SMT Host state unknown
Vulnerability Meltdown: Mitigation; PTI
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl and seccomp
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; Full generic retpoline, IBPB conditional, IBRS_FW, STIBP conditional, RSB filling
Vulnerability Srbds: Unknown: Dependent on hypervisor status
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers attempted, no microcode; SMT Host state unknown
In terms of performance in Python, is a list-comprehension, or functions like map(), filter() and reduce() faster than a for loop? Why, technically, they run in a C speed, while the for loop runs in the python virtual machine speed?.
Suppose that in a game that I’m developing I need to draw complex and huge maps using for loops. This question would be definitely relevant, for if a list-comprehension, for example, is indeed faster, it would be a much better option in order to avoid lags (Despite the visual complexity of the code).
If you check the info on python.org, you can see this summary:
Version Time (seconds)
Basic loop 3.47
Eliminate dots 2.45
Local variable & no dots 1.79
Using map function 0.54
But you really should read the above article in details to understand the cause of the performance difference.
I also strongly suggest you should time your code by using timeit. At the end of the day, there can be a situation where, for example, you may need to break out of for loop when a condition is met. It could potentially be faster than finding out the result by calling map.
The following are rough guidelines and educated guesses based on experience. You should timeit or profile your concrete use case to get hard numbers, and those numbers may occasionally disagree with the below.
A list comprehension is usually a tiny bit faster than the precisely equivalent for loop (that actually builds a list), most likely because it doesn’t have to look up the list and its append method on every iteration. However, a list comprehension still does a bytecode-level loop:
>>> dis.dis(<the code object for `[x for x in range(10)]`>)
1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
3 LOAD_FAST 0 (.0)
>> 6 FOR_ITER 12 (to 21)
9 STORE_FAST 1 (x)
12 LOAD_FAST 1 (x)
15 LIST_APPEND 2
18 JUMP_ABSOLUTE 6
>> 21 RETURN_VALUE
Using a list comprehension in place of a loop that doesn’t build a list, nonsensically accumulating a list of meaningless values and then throwing the list away, is often slower because of the overhead of creating and extending the list. List comprehensions aren’t magic that is inherently faster than a good old loop.
As for functional list processing functions: While these are written in C and probably outperform equivalent functions written in Python, they are not necessarily the fastest option. Some speed up is expected if the function is written in C too. But most cases using a lambda (or other Python function), the overhead of repeatedly setting up Python stack frames etc. eats up any savings. Simply doing the same work in-line, without function calls (e.g. a list comprehension instead of map or filter) is often slightly faster.
Suppose that in a game that I’m developing I need to draw complex and huge maps using for loops. This question would be definitely relevant, for if a list-comprehension, for example, is indeed faster, it would be a much better option in order to avoid lags (Despite the visual complexity of the code).
Chances are, if code like this isn’t already fast enough when written in good non-“optimized” Python, no amount of Python level micro optimization is going to make it fast enough and you should start thinking about dropping to C. While extensive micro optimizations can often speed up Python code considerably, there is a low (in absolute terms) limit to this. Moreover, even before you hit that ceiling, it becomes simply more cost efficient (15% speedup vs. 300% speed up with the same effort) to bite the bullet and write some C.
You ask specifically about map(), filter() and reduce(), but I assume you want to know about functional programming in general. Having tested this myself on the problem of computing distances between all points within a set of points, functional programming (using the starmap function from the built-in itertools module) turned out to be slightly slower than for-loops (taking 1.25 times as long, in fact). Here is the sample code I used:
import itertools, time, math, random
class Point:
def __init__(self,x,y):
self.x, self.y = x, y
point_set = (Point(0, 0), Point(0, 1), Point(0, 2), Point(0, 3))
n_points = 100
pick_val = lambda : 10 * random.random() - 5
large_set = [Point(pick_val(), pick_val()) for _ in range(n_points)]
# the distance function
f_dist = lambda x0, x1, y0, y1: math.sqrt((x0 - x1) ** 2 + (y0 - y1) ** 2)
# go through each point, get its distance from all remaining points
f_pos = lambda p1, p2: (p1.x, p2.x, p1.y, p2.y)
extract_dists = lambda x: itertools.starmap(f_dist,
itertools.starmap(f_pos,
itertools.combinations(x, 2)))
print('Distances:', list(extract_dists(point_set)))
t0_f = time.time()
list(extract_dists(large_set))
dt_f = time.time() - t0_f
Is the functional version faster than the procedural version?
def extract_dists_procedural(pts):
n_pts = len(pts)
l = []
for k_p1 in range(n_pts - 1):
for k_p2 in range(k_p1, n_pts):
l.append((pts[k_p1].x - pts[k_p2].x) ** 2 +
(pts[k_p1].y - pts[k_p2].y) ** 2)
return l
t0_p = time.time()
list(extract_dists_procedural(large_set))
# using list() on the assumption that
# it eats up as much time as in the functional version
dt_p = time.time() - t0_p
f_vs_p = dt_p / dt_f
if f_vs_p >= 1.0:
print('Time benefit of functional progamming:', f_vs_p,
'times as fast for', n_points, 'points')
else:
print('Time penalty of functional programming:', 1 / f_vs_p,
'times as slow for', n_points, 'points')
I wrote a simple script that test the speed and this is what I found out. Actually for loop was fastest in my case. That really suprised me, check out bellow (was calculating sum of squares).
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print (datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next**2, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = 0
for i in numbers:
i = i**2
a += i
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
sqrt = lambda x: x**2
return sum(map(sqrt, numbers))
def square_sum4(numbers):
return(sum([int(i)**2 for i in numbers]))
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
0:00:00.302000 #Reduce
0:00:00.144000 #For loop
0:00:00.318000 #Map
0:00:00.390000 #List comprehension
Adding a twist to Alphii answer, actually the for loop would be second best and about 6 times slower than map
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print (datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next**2, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = 0
for i in numbers:
a += i**2
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
a = 0
map(lambda x: a+x**2, numbers)
return a
def square_sum4(numbers):
a = 0
return [a+i**2 for i in numbers]
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
Main changes have been to eliminate the slow sum calls, as well as the probably unnecessary int() in the last case. Putting the for loop and map in the same terms makes it quite fact, actually. Remember that lambdas are functional concepts and theoretically shouldn’t have side effects, but, well, they can have side effects like adding to a.
Results in this case with Python 3.6.1, Ubuntu 14.04, Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz
0:00:00.257703 #Reduce
0:00:00.184898 #For loop
0:00:00.031718 #Map
0:00:00.212699 #List comprehension
I have managed to modify some of @alpiii’s code and discovered that List comprehension is a little faster than for loop. It might be caused by int(), it is not fair between list comprehension and for loop.
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print (datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next*next, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = []
for i in numbers:
a.append(i*2)
a = sum(a)
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
sqrt = lambda x: x*x
return sum(map(sqrt, numbers))
def square_sum4(numbers):
return(sum([i*i for i in numbers]))
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
0:00:00.101122 #Reduce
0:00:00.089216 #For loop
0:00:00.101532 #Map
0:00:00.068916 #List comprehension
I modified @Alisa’s code and used cProfile to show why list comprehension is faster:
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def reduce_(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum + next * next, numbers, 0)
def for_loop(numbers):
a = []
for i in numbers:
a.append(i*2)
a = sum(a)
return a
def map_(numbers):
sqrt = lambda x: x*x
return sum(map(sqrt, numbers))
def list_comp(numbers):
return(sum([i*i for i in numbers]))
funcs = [
reduce_,
for_loop,
map_,
list_comp
]
if __name__ == "__main__":
# [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3]
import cProfile
for f in funcs:
print('=' * 25)
print("Profiling:", f.__name__)
print('=' * 25)
pr = cProfile.Profile()
for i in range(10**6):
pr.runcall(f, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
pr.create_stats()
pr.print_stats()
Here’s the results:
=========================
Profiling: reduce_
=========================
11000000 function calls in 1.501 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.162 0.000 1.473 0.000 profiling.py:4(reduce_)
8000000 0.461 0.000 0.461 0.000 profiling.py:5(<lambda>)
1000000 0.850 0.000 1.311 0.000 {built-in method _functools.reduce}
1000000 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
=========================
Profiling: for_loop
=========================
11000000 function calls in 1.372 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.879 0.000 1.344 0.000 profiling.py:7(for_loop)
1000000 0.145 0.000 0.145 0.000 {built-in method builtins.sum}
8000000 0.320 0.000 0.320 0.000 {method 'append' of 'list' objects}
1000000 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
=========================
Profiling: map_
=========================
11000000 function calls in 1.470 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.264 0.000 1.442 0.000 profiling.py:14(map_)
8000000 0.387 0.000 0.387 0.000 profiling.py:15(<lambda>)
1000000 0.791 0.000 1.178 0.000 {built-in method builtins.sum}
1000000 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
=========================
Profiling: list_comp
=========================
4000000 function calls in 0.737 seconds
Ordered by: standard name
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1000000 0.318 0.000 0.709 0.000 profiling.py:18(list_comp)
1000000 0.261 0.000 0.261 0.000 profiling.py:19(<listcomp>)
1000000 0.131 0.000 0.131 0.000 {built-in method builtins.sum}
1000000 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 {method 'disable' of '_lsprof.Profiler' objects}
IMHO:
reduceandmapare in general pretty slow. Not only that, usingsumon the iterators thatmapreturned is slow, compared tosuming a listfor_loopuses append, which is of course slow to some extent- list-comprehension not only spent the least time building the list, it also makes
summuch quicker, in contrast tomap
I was looking for some performance information regarding ‘for’ loops and ‘list comprehension’ and stumbled upon this topic.
It has been a few months since Python 3.11 release (October 2022) and one of the main features of Python 3.11 was speed improvements.
https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3110/
The Faster CPython Project is already yielding some exciting results. Python 3.11 is up to 10-60% faster than Python 3.10. On average, we measured a 1.22x speedup on the standard benchmark suite. See Faster CPython for details.
I ran the same code originally posted by Alphi and then "twisted" by jjmerelo. Python3.10 and Python3.11 results below:
from functools import reduce
import datetime
def time_it(func, numbers, *args):
start_t = datetime.datetime.now()
for i in range(numbers):
func(args[0])
print(datetime.datetime.now()-start_t)
def square_sum1(numbers):
return reduce(lambda sum, next: sum+next**2, numbers, 0)
def square_sum2(numbers):
a = 0
for i in numbers:
a += i**2
return a
def square_sum3(numbers):
a = 0
map(lambda x: a+x**2, numbers)
return a
def square_sum4(numbers):
a = 0
return [a+i**2 for i in numbers]
time_it(square_sum1, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum2, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum3, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
time_it(square_sum4, 100000, [1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3])
I haven’t calculated the exact percentage improvement but it is clear that the performance gain – at least in this particular instance – seems to be impressive (3 to 4 times faster) with the exception of ‘map’ which has negligible performance improvement.
#Python 3.10
0:00:00.221134 #Reduce
0:00:00.186307 #For
0:00:00.024311 #Map
0:00:00.206454 #List comprehension
#python3.11
0:00:00.072550 #Reduce
0:00:00.037168 #For
0:00:00.021702 #Map
0:00:00.058655 #List Comprehension
Note: I ran this on a Kali Linux VM running under Windows 11 using WSL. I’m not sure if this code might perform even better if run natively (bare metal) on a Linux instance.
My Kali Linux VM specs below:
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
Address sizes: 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
Model name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700T CPU @ 2.80GHz
CPU family: 6
Model: 94
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 4
Socket(s): 1
Stepping: 3
BogoMIPS: 5615.99
Flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc rep_good nopl xtopology cpuid pni pclmulqdq vmx ssse3 fma cx16 pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt aes xsave avx f16c rdrand hypervisor lahf_lm abm 3dnowprefetch invpcid_single pti ssbd ibrs ibpb stibp tpr_shadow vnmi ept vpid ept_ad fsgsbase bmi1 hle avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid rtm rdseed adx smap clflushopt xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 xsaves flush_l1d arch_capabilities
Virtualization: VT-x
Hypervisor vendor: Microsoft
Virtualization type: full
L1d cache: 128 KiB (4 instances)
L1i cache: 128 KiB (4 instances)
L2 cache: 1 MiB (4 instances)
L3 cache: 8 MiB (1 instance)
Vulnerability Itlb multihit: KVM: Mitigation: VMX disabled
Vulnerability L1tf: Mitigation; PTE Inversion; VMX conditional cache flushes, SMT vulnerable
Vulnerability Mds: Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers attempted, no microcode; SMT Host state unknown
Vulnerability Meltdown: Mitigation; PTI
Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl and seccomp
Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2: Mitigation; Full generic retpoline, IBPB conditional, IBRS_FW, STIBP conditional, RSB filling
Vulnerability Srbds: Unknown: Dependent on hypervisor status
Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers attempted, no microcode; SMT Host state unknown