Alexander McFarlane - 3 months ago 4x
Python Question

Is it faster to iterate a small list within an any() statement?

Consider the following operation in the limit of low length iterables,

``````d = (3, slice(None, None, None), slice(None, None, None))

In [215]: %timeit any([type(i) == slice for i in d])
1000000 loops, best of 3: 695 ns per loop

In [214]: %timeit any(type(i) == slice for i in d)
1000000 loops, best of 3: 929 ns per loop
``````

Setting as a
`list`
is 25% faster?

Why is this the case as setting as a
`list`
is an extra operation.

Note: In both runs I obtained the warning:
`The slowest run took 6.42 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached`
I

Analysis

In this particular test,
`list()`
structures are faster up to a length of
`4`
from which the generator has increased performance.

The red line shows where this event occurs and the black line shows where both are equal in performance.

The code takes about 1min to run on my MacBook Pro by utilising all the cores:

``````import timeit, pylab, multiprocessing
import numpy as np

manager = multiprocessing.Manager()
g = manager.list([])
l = manager.list([])

rng = range(1,16) # list lengths
max_series = [3,slice(None, None, None)]*rng[-1] # alternate array types
series = [max_series[:n] for n in rng]

number, reps = 1000000, 5
def func_l(d):
l.append(timeit.repeat("any([type(i) == slice for i in {}])".format(d),repeat=reps, number=number))
print "done List, len:{}".format(len(d))
def func_g(d):
g.append(timeit.repeat("any(type(i) == slice for i in {})".format(d), repeat=reps, number=number))
print "done Generator, len:{}".format(len(d))

p = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=min(16,rng[-1])) # optimize for 16 processors
p.map(func_l, series) # pool list
p.map(func_g, series) # pool gens

ratio = np.asarray(g).mean(axis=1) / np.asarray(l).mean(axis=1)
pylab.plot(rng, ratio, label='av. generator time / av. list time')
pylab.title("{} iterations, averaged over {} runs".format(number,reps))
pylab.xlabel("length of iterable")
pylab.ylabel("Time Ratio (Higher is worse)")
pylab.legend()
lt_zero = np.argmax(ratio<1.)
pylab.axhline(y=1, color='k')
pylab.axvline(x=lt_zero+1, color='r')
pylab.ion() ; pylab.show()
``````

The catch is the size of the items you are applying `any` on. Repeat the same process on a larger dataset:

``````In [2]: d = ([3] * 1000) + [slice(None, None, None), slice(None, None, None)]*1000

In [3]: %timeit any([type(i) == slice for i in d])
1000 loops, best of 3: 736 µs per loop

In [4]: %timeit any(type(i) == slice for i in d)
1000 loops, best of 3: 285 µs per loop
``````

Then, using a `list` (loading all the items into memory) becomes much slower, and the generator expression plays out better.