Why is hardcoding this list slower than calculating it?
Question:
I want to assign the first 1024 terms of this sequence to a list. I initially guessed that hardcoding this list would be the fastest way. I also tried generating the list algorithmically and found this to be faster than hardcoding. I therefore tested various compromise approaches, using increasingly long hardcoded lists and algorithmically extending to 1024 items. The fastest way I found involved hardcoding the first 128 items and generating the rest.
I’d like to understand why hardcoding the first 128 items in the sequence and calculating the rest is faster than hardcoding all 1024 items. Code and profile results are shown below, using Python 3.4.2 Shell (IDLE) and cProfile timeit (
Thanks to Veedrac’s answer for the improved profiling code). I’ve left the hardcoded lists on one very long line to avoid cluttering the question with rows of numbers, but apart from this the code does not require horizontal scrolling.
Code
def hardcoded():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10]
def softcoded():
m = [0]
for k in range(10):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
def hybrid():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7]
for k in range(3):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
from timeit import Timer
def p_time(func, n=10000):
print(func.__name__)
print(min(Timer(func).repeat(10, n)) / n)
p_time(hardcoded)
p_time(softcoded)
p_time(hybrid)
Timings
hardcoded
1.593102711162828e-05
softcoded
1.1183638458442147e-05
hybrid
9.69246251002005e-06
I ran all of the timings several times and pasted in the lowest.
Answers:
It looks like loading/copying a pre-created list, and performing an in-place addition of those lists, is three python bytecode operations (two LOAD_FASTs and one INPLACE_ADD) that probably gets ultra-optimized in the bowels of the CPython interpreter’s C code, while individually specifying each component requires a single bytecode operation for every item.
I won’t paste the bytecodes themselves because that’ll be way too long, but here’s the code I added to create three text files with the bytecodes. hc.txt is by far the longest, sc.txt the shortest and hy.txt is somewhere in the middle. While single bytecodes take different times to perform, in general I think if there’s less of them it’s a good sign, as it suggests that more work is being performed in C.
def main():
with open('hc.txt', 'w') as f:
sys.stdout = f
dis.dis(hardcoded)
with open('sc.txt', 'w') as f:
sys.stdout = f
dis.dis(softcoded)
with open('hy.txt', 'w') as f:
sys.stdout = f
dis.dis(hybrid)
if __name__=='__main__':
main()
Firstly, your timing is done in a high overhead way. You should use this instead:
def hardcoded():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10]
def softcoded():
m = [0]
for k in range(10):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
def hybrid():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7]
for k in range(3):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
from timeit import Timer
def p_time(func, n=10000):
print(func.__name__)
print(min(Timer(func).repeat(10, n)) / n)
p_time(hardcoded)
p_time(softcoded)
p_time(hybrid)
My timings on Python 3.4 are
hardcoded
4.190810100408271e-06
softcoded
4.509894398506731e-06
hybrid
3.4970380016602578e-06
which doesn’t quite agree with yours. This is probably because cProfile will add quite a bit of overhead to the first case (hence to move to timeit.Timer).
To understand why, let’s look at the disassembly for hardcoded:
0 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
3 LOAD_CONST 2 (1)
6 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
9 LOAD_CONST 3 (2)
12 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
...
3063 LOAD_CONST 2 (1)
3066 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
3069 LOAD_CONST 11 (10)
3072 BUILD_LIST 1024
3075 STORE_FAST 0 (m)
3078 LOAD_CONST 0 (None)
3081 RETURN_VALUE
This is several kilobytes of code that needs to go through a big switch that decodes each LOAD_CONST instruction, reads its argument, finds the argument from hardcoded.__code__.co_consts (which is (None, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)) and add that to the list.
It is done this way because a list is mutable so you need to build a new one each time. CPython will do this in the opcodes because it’s fast for most lists; it’s only slow when building large, low entropy lists.
In contrary, m += m is able to just duplicate the list (an internal C routine), increment a few reference counts and return. This requires no expensive decode stage, no reading elements from tuples and is very cache friendly. However, the call m += m is only low-overhead when the constant-time bytecode dispatch, type-lookup and internal bookkeeping is amortized out over the whole operation. When m is small, this is not the case so it ends up being slower than the LOAD_CONST loop from before. This is why the hybrid approach is faster but the full loop is slower; the first 7 iterations are slower than just using LOAD_CONST.
We can improve hybrid by unrolling:
def hybrid():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7]
m *= 2
m[-1] += 1
m *= 2
m[-1] += 1
m *= 2
m[-1] += 1
return m
and again with a bit of compression:
def hybrid():
m = [0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 5, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 6]
m *= 16
m[127::128] = 7, 8, 7, 9, 7, 8, 7, 10
return m
But really you should just cache the result and copy it:
M = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10]
def copy():
m = M[:]
In fact, if possible you should try tuples, as immutable values don’t need to be copied or regenerated at all:
def immutable():
m = (0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10)
Timings on Python 3.4:
hybrid
2.64736270182766e-06
copy
2.3061631014570593e-06
immutable
1.1302909697405994e-07
Note that the hybrid being timed is my improved version.
I want to assign the first 1024 terms of this sequence to a list. I initially guessed that hardcoding this list would be the fastest way. I also tried generating the list algorithmically and found this to be faster than hardcoding. I therefore tested various compromise approaches, using increasingly long hardcoded lists and algorithmically extending to 1024 items. The fastest way I found involved hardcoding the first 128 items and generating the rest.
I’d like to understand why hardcoding the first 128 items in the sequence and calculating the rest is faster than hardcoding all 1024 items. Code and profile results are shown below, using Python 3.4.2 Shell (IDLE) and cProfile timeit (
Thanks to Veedrac’s answer for the improved profiling code). I’ve left the hardcoded lists on one very long line to avoid cluttering the question with rows of numbers, but apart from this the code does not require horizontal scrolling.
Code
def hardcoded():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10]
def softcoded():
m = [0]
for k in range(10):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
def hybrid():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7]
for k in range(3):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
from timeit import Timer
def p_time(func, n=10000):
print(func.__name__)
print(min(Timer(func).repeat(10, n)) / n)
p_time(hardcoded)
p_time(softcoded)
p_time(hybrid)
Timings
hardcoded
1.593102711162828e-05
softcoded
1.1183638458442147e-05
hybrid
9.69246251002005e-06
I ran all of the timings several times and pasted in the lowest.
It looks like loading/copying a pre-created list, and performing an in-place addition of those lists, is three python bytecode operations (two LOAD_FASTs and one INPLACE_ADD) that probably gets ultra-optimized in the bowels of the CPython interpreter’s C code, while individually specifying each component requires a single bytecode operation for every item.
I won’t paste the bytecodes themselves because that’ll be way too long, but here’s the code I added to create three text files with the bytecodes. hc.txt is by far the longest, sc.txt the shortest and hy.txt is somewhere in the middle. While single bytecodes take different times to perform, in general I think if there’s less of them it’s a good sign, as it suggests that more work is being performed in C.
def main():
with open('hc.txt', 'w') as f:
sys.stdout = f
dis.dis(hardcoded)
with open('sc.txt', 'w') as f:
sys.stdout = f
dis.dis(softcoded)
with open('hy.txt', 'w') as f:
sys.stdout = f
dis.dis(hybrid)
if __name__=='__main__':
main()
Firstly, your timing is done in a high overhead way. You should use this instead:
def hardcoded():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10]
def softcoded():
m = [0]
for k in range(10):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
def hybrid():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7]
for k in range(3):
m += m
m[-1] += 1
from timeit import Timer
def p_time(func, n=10000):
print(func.__name__)
print(min(Timer(func).repeat(10, n)) / n)
p_time(hardcoded)
p_time(softcoded)
p_time(hybrid)
My timings on Python 3.4 are
hardcoded
4.190810100408271e-06
softcoded
4.509894398506731e-06
hybrid
3.4970380016602578e-06
which doesn’t quite agree with yours. This is probably because cProfile will add quite a bit of overhead to the first case (hence to move to timeit.Timer).
To understand why, let’s look at the disassembly for hardcoded:
0 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
3 LOAD_CONST 2 (1)
6 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
9 LOAD_CONST 3 (2)
12 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
...
3063 LOAD_CONST 2 (1)
3066 LOAD_CONST 1 (0)
3069 LOAD_CONST 11 (10)
3072 BUILD_LIST 1024
3075 STORE_FAST 0 (m)
3078 LOAD_CONST 0 (None)
3081 RETURN_VALUE
This is several kilobytes of code that needs to go through a big switch that decodes each LOAD_CONST instruction, reads its argument, finds the argument from hardcoded.__code__.co_consts (which is (None, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)) and add that to the list.
It is done this way because a list is mutable so you need to build a new one each time. CPython will do this in the opcodes because it’s fast for most lists; it’s only slow when building large, low entropy lists.
In contrary, m += m is able to just duplicate the list (an internal C routine), increment a few reference counts and return. This requires no expensive decode stage, no reading elements from tuples and is very cache friendly. However, the call m += m is only low-overhead when the constant-time bytecode dispatch, type-lookup and internal bookkeeping is amortized out over the whole operation. When m is small, this is not the case so it ends up being slower than the LOAD_CONST loop from before. This is why the hybrid approach is faster but the full loop is slower; the first 7 iterations are slower than just using LOAD_CONST.
We can improve hybrid by unrolling:
def hybrid():
m = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7]
m *= 2
m[-1] += 1
m *= 2
m[-1] += 1
m *= 2
m[-1] += 1
return m
and again with a bit of compression:
def hybrid():
m = [0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 5, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 6]
m *= 16
m[127::128] = 7, 8, 7, 9, 7, 8, 7, 10
return m
But really you should just cache the result and copy it:
M = [0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10]
def copy():
m = M[:]
In fact, if possible you should try tuples, as immutable values don’t need to be copied or regenerated at all:
def immutable():
m = (0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,9,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,8,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,7,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,6,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,5,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,4,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,3,0,1,0,2,0,1,0,10)
Timings on Python 3.4:
hybrid
2.64736270182766e-06
copy
2.3061631014570593e-06
immutable
1.1302909697405994e-07
Note that the hybrid being timed is my improved version.