Differences between revisions 78 and 79
Revision 78 as of 2011-08-26 06:35:42
Size: 28444
Editor: StefanBehnel
Comment:
Revision 79 as of 2012-07-15 10:13:48
Size: 28624
Editor: BrianCleary
Comment: wiki restore 2013-01-23
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
#acl AdminGroup:read,write,delete,revert,admin Known:read,write All:read
Line 5: Line 4:
This page is devoted to various tips and tricks that help improve the
performance of your Python programs. Wherever the information comes from
someone else, I've tried to identify the source.

Python has changed in some significant ways since I first wrote my "fast
python" page in about 1996, which means that some of the orderings will have
changed. I migrated it to the Python wiki in hopes others will help maintain
it.

{{{#!wiki tip


You should always test these tips with your application and the specific version of the Python
[[PythonImplementations|implementation]] you intend to use and not just blindly accept that one
method is faster than another. See the [[#Profiling|profiling]] section for more details.
}}}

Also new since this was originally written are packages like
[[http://cython.org/|Cython]],
[[http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg/python/Pyrex/|Pyrex]],
[[http://psyco.sourceforge.net/|Psyco]],
[[http://www.scipy.org/Weave|Weave]] and
[[http://pyinline.sourceforge.net/|PyInline]], which can dramatically improve
your application's performance by making it easier to push
performance-critical code into C or machine language.
This page is devoted to various tips and tricks that help improve the performance of your Python programs. Wherever the information comes from someone else, I've tried to identify the source.


Python has changed in some significant ways since I first wrote my "fast python" page in about 1996, which means that some of the orderings will have changed. I migrated it to the Python wiki in hopes others will help maintain it.






You should always test these tips with your application and the specific version of the Python [[PythonImplementations|implementation]] you intend to use and not just blindly accept that one method is faster than another. See the [[PythonSpeed/PerformanceTips#Profiling|profiling]] section for more details.




Also new since this was originally written are packages like [[http://cython.org/|Cython]], [[http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg/python/Pyrex/|Pyrex]], [[http://psyco.sourceforge.net/|Psyco]], [[http://www.scipy.org/Weave|Weave]], [[http://code.google.com/p/shedskin/|Shed Skin]] and [[http://pyinline.sourceforge.net/|PyInline]], which can dramatically improve your application's performance by making it easier to push performance-critical code into C or machine language.
Line 32: Line 24:
Line 34: Line 27:
Line 36: Line 30:
You can only know what makes your program slow after first getting the program to give correct results, then running it to see if the correct program is slow. <<BR>>
When found to be slow, profiling can show what parts of the program are consuming most of the time. A comprehensive but quick-to-run test suite can then ensure that future optimizations don't change the correctness of your program. <<BR>> In short:
  1. Get it right.
 
2. Test it's right.
  3. Profile if slow.
  4. Optimise.
  5. Repeat from 2.

You can only know what makes your program slow after first getting the program to give correct results, then running it to see if the correct program is slow.
When found to be slow, profiling can show what parts of the program are consuming most of the time. A comprehensive but quick-to-run test suite can then ensure that future optimizations don't change the correctness of your program.
In short:


 1. Get it right.
 1. Test it's right.
 1. Profile if slow.
 1. Optimise.
 1.
Repeat from 2.
Line 46: Line 45:
Line 48: Line 48:
Line 53: Line 54:
Sorting lists of basic Python objects is generally pretty efficient. The sort method for lists takes an optional comparison function as an
argument that can be used to change the sorting behavior. This is quite convenient, though it can significantly slow down your sorts, as the comparison function will be called many times. In Python 2.4, you should use the key argument to the built-in sort instead, which should be the fastest way to sort.

Sorting lists of basic Python objects is generally pretty efficient. The sort method for lists takes an optional comparison function as an argument that can be used to change the sorting behavior. This is quite convenient, though it can significantly slow down your sorts, as the comparison function will be called many times. In Python 2.4, you should use the key argument to the built-in sort instead, which should be the fastest way to sort.
Line 58: Line 60:
An alternative way to speed up sorts is to construct a list of tuples whose
first element is a sort key that will sort properly using the default
comparison, and whose second element is the original list element. This is
the so-called
[[http://www.google.com/search?q=Schwartzian+Transform|Schwartzian Transform]],
also known as DecorateSortUndecorate (DSU).

Suppose, for example, you have a list of tuples that you want to sort by
the n-th field of each tuple. The following function will do that.

{{{#!python numbers=disable

An alternative way to speed up sorts is to construct a list of tuples whose first element is a sort key that will sort properly using the default comparison, and whose second element is the original list element. This is the so-called [[http://www.google.com/search?q=Schwartzian+Transform|Schwartzian Transform]], also known as [[DecorateSortUndecorate|DecorateSortUndecorate]] (DSU).


Suppose, for example, you have a list of tuples that you want to sort by the n-th field of each tuple. The following function will do that.







{{{
Line 75: Line 79:
Matching the behavior of the current list sort method (sorting in place)
is easily achieved as well:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


Matching the behavior of the current list sort method (sorting in place) is easily achieved as well:







{{{
Line 86: Line 97:

Line 88: Line 101:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 103: Line 122:

Line 105: Line 126:
Line 107: Line 129:
Line 109: Line 132:
Line 111: Line 135:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 120: Line 150:

Line 122: Line 154:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 131: Line 169:
Line 133: Line 172:
{{{#!wiki note
The accuracy of this section is disputed with respect to later versions of Python. In CPython 2.5, string concatenation is fairly fast, although this may not apply likewise to other Python implementations.
See ConcatenationTestCode for a discussion.
}}}


Strings in Python are immutable. This fact frequently sneaks up and
bites novice Python programmers on the rump. Immutability confers some
advantages and disadvantages. In the plus column, strings can be used as
keys in dictionaries and individual copies can be shared among multiple
variable bindings. (Python automatically shares one- and two-character
strings.) In the minus column, you can't say something like, "change all
the 'a's to 'b's" in any given string. Instead, you have to create a new
string with the desired properties. This continual copying can lead to
significant inefficiencies in Python programs.





The accuracy of this section is disputed with respect to later versions of Python. In CPython 2.5, string concatenation is fairly fast, although this may not apply likewise to other Python implementations. See [[ConcatenationTestCode|ConcatenationTestCode]] for a discussion.




Strings in Python are immutable. This fact frequently sneaks up and bites novice Python programmers on the rump. Immutability confers some advantages and disadvantages. In the plus column, strings can be used as keys in dictionaries and individual copies can be shared among multiple variable bindings. (Python automatically shares one- and two-character strings.) In the minus column, you can't say something like, "change all the 'a's to 'b's" in any given string. Instead, you have to create a new string with the desired properties. This continual copying can lead to significant inefficiencies in Python programs.
Line 150: Line 187:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 156: Line 199:
Use {{{s = "".join(list)}}} instead. The former is a very common and
catastrophic mistake when building large strings. Similarly, if you are
generating bits of a string sequentially instead of:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


Use {{{s = "".join(list)}}} instead. The former is a very common and catastrophic mistake when building large strings. Similarly, if you are generating bits of a string sequentially instead of:







{{{
Line 166: Line 215:

Line 168: Line 219:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 173: Line 230:

Line 175: Line 234:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 179: Line 244:

Line 181: Line 248:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 185: Line 258:
Even better, for readability (this has nothing to do with efficiency
other than yours as a programmer), use dictionary substitution:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


Even better, for readability (this has nothing to do with efficiency other than yours as a programmer), use dictionary substitution:







{{{
Line 192: Line 272:
This last two are going to be much faster, especially when piled up over
many CGI script executions, and easier to modify to boot. In addition,
the slow way of doing things got slower in Python 2.0 with the addition
of rich comparisons to the language. It now takes the Python virtual
machine a lot longer to figure out how to concatenate two strings.
(Don't forget that Python does all method lookup at runtime.)


This last two are going to be much faster, especially when piled up over many CGI script executions, and easier to modify to boot. In addition, the slow way of doing things got slower in Python 2.0 with the addition of rich comparisons to the language. It now takes the Python virtual machine a lot longer to figure out how to concatenate two strings. (Don't forget that Python does all method lookup at runtime.)
Line 202: Line 279:
Python supports a couple of looping constructs. The {{{for}}} statement is
most commonly used. It loops over the elements of a sequence, assigning each
to the loop variable. If the body of your loop is simple, the interpreter
overhead of the {{{for}}} loop itself can be a substantial amount of the
overhead. This is where the
[[http://www.python.org/doc/lib/built-in-funcs.html|map]] function is handy.
You can think of {{{map}}} as a {{{for}}} moved into C code. The only
restriction is that the "loop body" of {{{map}}} must be a function call. Besides the syntactic benefit of list comprehensions, they are often as fast or faster than equivalent use of {{{map}}}.

Here's a straightforward example. Instead of looping over a list of
words and converting them to upper case:

{{{#!python numbers=disable

Python supports a couple of looping constructs. The {{{for}}} statement is most commonly used. It loops over the elements of a sequence, assigning each to the loop variable. If the body of your loop is simple, the interpreter overhead of the {{{for}}} loop itself can be a substantial amount of the overhead. This is where the [[http://www.python.org/doc/lib/built-in-funcs.html|map]] function is handy. You can think of {{{map}}} as a {{{for}}} moved into C code. The only restriction is that the "loop body" of {{{map}}} must be a function call. Besides the syntactic benefit of list comprehensions, they are often as fast or faster than equivalent use of {{{map}}}.


Here's a straightforward example. Instead of looping over a list of words and converting them to upper case:







{{{
Line 220: Line 297:
you can use {{{map}}} to push the loop from the interpreter into compiled C
code:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


you can use {{{map}}} to push the loop from the interpreter into compiled C code:







{{{
Line 227: Line 311:
List comprehensions were added to Python in version 2.0 as well. They
provide a syntactically more compact and more efficient way of writing the above for loop:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


List comprehensions were added to Python in version 2.0 as well. They provide a syntactically more compact and more efficient way of writing the above for loop:







{{{
Line 234: Line 325:
Generator expressions were added to Python in version 2.4. They function
more-or-less like list comprehensions or {{{map}}} but avoid the overhead of
generating the entire list at once. Instead, they return a generator object
which can be iterated over bit-by-bit:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


Generator expressions were added to Python in version 2.4. They function more-or-less like list comprehensions or {{{map}}} but avoid the overhead of generating the entire list at once. Instead, they return a generator object which can be iterated over bit-by-bit:







{{{
Line 243: Line 339:
Which method is appropriate will depend on what version of Python you're
using and the characteristics of the data you are manipulating.

Guido van Rossum wrote a much more detailed (and succinct) examination of [[http://www.python.org/doc/essays/list2str.html|loop optimization]] that is
definitely worth reading.


Which method is appropriate will depend on what version of Python you're using and the characteristics of the data you are manipulating.


Guido van Rossum wrote a much more detailed (and succinct) examination of [[http://www.python.org/doc/essays/list2str.html|loop optimization]] that is definitely worth reading.
Line 252: Line 349:
Suppose you can't use {{{map}}} or a list comprehension? You may be stuck
with the for loop. The for loop example has another inefficiency. Both
{{{newlist.append}}} and {{{word.upper}}} are function references that are
reevaluated each time through the loop. The original loop can be
replaced with:

{{{#!python numbers=disable

Suppose you can't use {{{map}}} or a list comprehension? You may be stuck with the for loop. The for loop example has another inefficiency. Both {{{newlist.append}}} and {{{word.upper}}} are function references that are reevaluated each time through the loop. The original loop can be replaced with:







{{{
Line 266: Line 366:
This technique should be used with caution. It gets more difficult to
maintain if the loop is large. Unless you are intimately familiar with
that piece of code you will find yourself scanning up to check the
definitions of {{{append}}} and {{{upper}}}.


This technique should be used with caution. It gets more difficult to maintain if the loop is large. Unless you are intimately familiar with that piece of code you will find yourself scanning up to check the definitions of {{{append}}} and {{{upper}}}.
Line 274: Line 373:
The final speedup available to us for the non-{{{map}}} version of the {{{for}}}
loop is to use local variables wherever possible. If the above loop is
cast as a function, {{{append}}} and {{{upper}}} become local variables. Python
accesses local variables much more efficiently than global variables.

{{{#!python numbers=disable

The final speedup available to us for the non-{{{map}}} version of the {{{for}}} loop is to use local variables wherever possible. If the above loop is cast as a function, {{{append}}} and {{{upper}}} become local variables. Python accesses local variables much more efficiently than global variables.







{{{
Line 289: Line 392:
At the time I originally wrote this I was using a 100MHz Pentium running
BSDI. I got the following times for converting the list of words in
{{{/usr/share/dict/words}}} (38,470 words at that time) to upper case:


At the time I originally wrote this I was using a 100MHz Pentium running BSDI. I got the following times for converting the list of words in {{{/usr/share/dict/words}}} (38,470 words at that time) to upper case:



Line 304: Line 411:
Suppose you are building a dictionary of word frequencies and you've
already broken your text up into a list of words. You might execute
something like:

{{{#!python numbers=disable

Suppose you are building a dictionary of word frequencies and you've already broken your text up into a list of words. You might execute something like:







{{{
Line 316: Line 428:
Except for the first time, each time a word is seen the {{{if}}} statement's
test fails. If you are counting a large number of words, many will
probably occur multiple times. In a situation where the initialization
of a value is only going to occur once and the augmentation of that
value will occur many times it is cheaper to use a {{{try}}} statement:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


Except for the first time, each time a word is seen the {{{if}}} statement's test fails. If you are counting a large number of words, many will probably occur multiple times. In a situation where the initialization of a value is only going to occur once and the augmentation of that value will occur many times it is cheaper to use a {{{try}}} statement:







{{{
Line 331: Line 447:
It's important to catch the expected KeyError exception, and not have a
default {{{except}}} clause to avoid trying to recover from an exception you
really can't handle by the statement(s) in the {{{try}}} clause.

A third alternative became available with the release of Python 2.x.
Dictionaries now have a get() method which will return a default value
if the desired key isn't found in the dictionary. This simplifies the loop:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


It's important to catch the expected [[KeyError|KeyError]] exception, and not have a default {{{except}}} clause to avoid trying to recover from an exception you really can't handle by the statement(s) in the {{{try}}} clause.


A third alternative became available with the release of Python 2.x. Dictionaries now have a get() method which will return a default value if the desired key isn't found in the dictionary. This simplifies the loop:







{{{
Line 346: Line 467:
When I originally wrote this section, there were clear situations where
one of the first two approaches was faster. It seems that all three
approaches now exhibit similar performance (within about 10% of each
other), more or less independent of the properties of the list of words.

Also, if the value stored in the dictionary is an object or a (mutable) list,
you could also use the {{{dict.setdefault}}} method, e.g.

{{{#!python start=4
wdict.setdefault(key, []).append(new_element)
}}}

You might think that this avoids having to look up the key twice.
It actually doesn't (even in python 3.0), but at least the double
lookup is performed in C.


When I originally wrote this section, there were clear situations where one of the first two approaches was faster. It seems that all three approaches now exhibit similar performance (within about 10% of each other), more or less independent of the properties of the list of words.


Also, if the value stored in the dictionary is an object or a (mutable) list, you could also use the {{{dict.setdefault}}} method, e.g.







{{{
   
4  wdict.setdefault(key, []).append(new_element)
}}}



You might think that this avoids having to look up the key twice. It actually doesn't (even in python 3.0), but at least the double lookup is performed in C.
Line 364: Line 491:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 373: Line 506:

Line 375: Line 510:
{{{import}}} statements can be executed just about anywhere. It's often
useful to place them inside functions to restrict their visibility
and/or reduce initial startup time. Although Python's interpreter is
optimized to not import the same module multiple times, repeatedly
executing an import statement can seriously affect performance in some
circumstances.

Consider the following two snippets of code (originally from Greg McFarlane,
I believe - I found it unattributed in a comp.lang.python
python-list@python.org posting and later attributed to him in another
source):

{{{#!python numbers=disable

{{{import}}} statements can be executed just about anywhere. It's often useful to place them inside functions to restrict their visibility and/or reduce initial startup time. Although Python's interpreter is optimized to not import the same module multiple times, repeatedly executing an import statement can seriously affect performance in some circumstances.


Consider the following two snippets of code (originally from Greg [[McFarlane|McFarlane]], I believe - I found it unattributed in a comp.lang.python python-list@python.org posting and later attributed to him in another source):







{{{
Line 396: Line 531:

Line 398: Line 535:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 407: Line 550:
{{{doit2}}} will run much faster than {{{doit1}}}, even though the reference
to the string module is global in {{{doit2}}}. Here's a Python interpreter
session run using Python 2.3 and the new {{{timeit}}} module, which shows how
much faster the second is than the first:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


{{{doit2}}} will run much faster than {{{doit1}}}, even though the reference to the string module is global in {{{doit2}}}. Here's a Python interpreter session run using Python 2.3 and the new {{{timeit}}} module, which shows how much faster the second is than the first:







{{{
Line 430: Line 578:
String methods were introduced to the language in Python 2.0. These
provide a version that avoids the import completely and runs even faster:

{{{#!python numbers=disable


String methods were introduced to the language in Python 2.0. These provide a version that avoids the import completely and runs even faster:







{{{
Line 441: Line 596:

Line 443: Line 600:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 452: Line 615:
The above example is obviously a bit contrived, but the general
principle holds.

Note that putting an import in a function can speed up the initial loading
of the module, especially if the imported module might not be required. This
is generally a case of a "lazy" optimization -- avoiding work (importing a module,
which can be very expensive) until you are sure it is required.

This is only a significant saving in cases where the module wouldn't have been imported
at all (from any module) -- if the module is already loaded (as will be the case for many standard
modules, like {{{string}}} or {{{re}}}), avoiding an import doesn't save you anything.
To see what modules are loaded in the system look in {{{sys.modules}}}.


The above example is obviously a bit contrived, but the general principle holds.


Note that putting an import in a function can speed up the initial loading of the module, especially if the imported module might not be required. This is generally a case of a "lazy" optimization -- avoiding work (importing a module, which can be very expensive) until you are sure it is required.


This is only a significant saving in cases where the module wouldn't have been imported at all (from any module) -- if the module is already loaded (as will be the case for many standard modules, like {{{string}}} or {{{re}}}), avoiding an import doesn't save you anything. To see what modules are loaded in the system look in {{{sys.modules}}}.
Line 467: Line 628:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 477: Line 644:
This way the {{{email}}} module will only be imported once, on the first
invocation of {{{parse_email()}}}.


This way the {{{email}}} module will only be imported once, on the first invocation of {{{parse_email()}}}.
Line 482: Line 651:
Function call overhead in Python is relatively high, especially compared
with the execution speed of a builtin function. This strongly suggests
that where appropriate, functions should handle data aggregates. Here's
a contrived example written in Python.

{{{#!python numbers=disable

Function call overhead in Python is relatively high, especially compared with the execution speed of a builtin function. This strongly suggests that where appropriate, functions should handle data aggregates. Here's a contrived example written in Python.







{{{
Line 502: Line 675:

Line 504: Line 679:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 518: Line 699:

Line 520: Line 703:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 533: Line 722:
Even written in Python, the second example runs about four times faster
than the first. Had {{{doit}}} been written in C the difference would likely
have been even greater (exchanging a Python {{{for}}} loop for a C {{{for}}}
loop as well as removing most of the function calls).


Even written in Python, the second example runs about four times faster than the first. Had {{{doit}}} been written in C the difference would likely have been even greater (exchanging a Python {{{for}}} loop for a C {{{for}}} loop as well as removing most of the function calls).
Line 541: Line 729:
The Python interpreter performs some periodic checks. In particular, it
decides whether or not to let another thread run and whether or not to
run a pending call (typically a call established by a signal handler).
Most of the time there's nothing to do, so performing these checks each
pass around the interpreter loop can slow things down. There is a
function in the {{{sys}}} module, {{{setcheckinterval}}}, which you can call to
tell the interpreter how often to perform these periodic checks. Prior
to the release of Python 2.3 it defaulted to 10. In 2.3 this was raised
to 100. If you aren't running with threads and you don't expect to be
catching many signals, setting this to a larger value can improve the
interpreter's performance, sometimes substantially.

The Python interpreter performs some periodic checks. In particular, it decides whether or not to let another thread run and whether or not to run a pending call (typically a call established by a signal handler). Most of the time there's nothing to do, so performing these checks each pass around the interpreter loop can slow things down. There is a function in the {{{sys}}} module, {{{setcheckinterval}}}, which you can call to tell the interpreter how often to perform these periodic checks. Prior to the release of Python 2.3 it defaulted to 10. In 2.3 this was raised to 100. If you aren't running with threads and you don't expect to be catching many signals, setting this to a larger value can improve the interpreter's performance, sometimes substantially.
Line 556: Line 735:
It is also not Perl, Java, C++ or Haskell. Be careful when transferring
your knowledge of how other languages perform to Python. A simple
example serves to demonstrate:

It is also not Perl, Java, C++ or Haskell. Be careful when transferring your knowledge of how other languages perform to Python. A simple example serves to demonstrate:



Line 562: Line 744:
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.574 usec per loop loops, best of 3: 0.574 usec per loop
Line 564: Line 746:
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.524 usec per loop loops, best of 3: 0.524 usec per loop
Line 566: Line 748:
1000000 loops, best of 3: 0.382 usec per loop
}}}
loops, best of 3: 0.382 usec per loop
}}}
Line 571: Line 754:
{{{#!cplusplus numbers=disable





{{{
Line 583: Line 772:

Line 584: Line 775:



Line 606: Line 801:
Note that there is a significant advantage in Python to adding a number
to itself instead of multiplying it by two or shifting it left by one
bit. In C on all modern computer architectures, each of the three
arithmetic operations are translated into a single machine instruction
which executes in one cycle, so it doesn't really matter which one you
choose.

A common "test" new Python programmers often perform is to translate the
common Perl idiom

Note that there is a significant advantage in Python to adding a number to itself instead of multiplying it by two or shifting it left by one bit. In C on all modern computer architectures, each of the three arithmetic operations are translated into a single machine instruction which executes in one cycle, so it doesn't really matter which one you choose.


A common "test" new Python programmers often perform is to translate the common Perl idiom



Line 622: Line 817:
Line 624: Line 820:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 631: Line 833:
and use it to conclude that Python must be much slower than Perl. As
others have pointed out numerous times, Python is slower than Perl for
some things and faster for others. Relative performance also often
depends on your experience with the two languages.


and use it to conclude that Python must be much slower than Perl. As others have pointed out numerous times, Python is slower than Perl for some things and faster for others. Relative performance also often depends on your experience with the two languages.
Line 638: Line 840:
{{{#!wiki tip


Line 641: Line 846:
}}}

Line 645: Line 852:
Line 647: Line 855:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 662: Line 876:

Line 664: Line 880:
Line 666: Line 883:
Line 668: Line 886:
Line 670: Line 889:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 674: Line 899:

Line 676: Line 903:
In Python versions before 2.2, {{{xrange}}} objects also supported optimizations such as fast membership testing ({{{i in xrange(n)}}}). These features were removed in 2.2 due to lack of use.
In Python versions before 2.2, {{{xrange}}} objects also supported optimizations such as fast membership testing ({{{i in xrange(n)}}}). These features were removed in 2.2 due to lack of use.
Line 680: Line 909:
Line 682: Line 912:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 699: Line 935:

Line 701: Line 939:
Line 703: Line 942:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 720: Line 965:

Line 722: Line 969:
<<Anchor(Profiling)>>


Line 725: Line 975:
The first step to speeding up your program is learning where the
bottlenecks lie. It hardly makes sense to optimize code that is never
executed or that already runs fast. I use two modules to help locate the
hotspots in my code, profile and trace. In later examples I also use the
{{{timeit}}} module, which is new in Python 2.3.

The first step to speeding up your program is learning where the bottlenecks lie. It hardly makes sense to optimize code that is never executed or that already runs fast. I use two modules to help locate the hotspots in my code, profile and trace. In later examples I also use the {{{timeit}}} module, which is new in Python 2.3.
Line 733: Line 981:
Line 735: Line 984:
Line 737: Line 987:
{{{#!python numbers=disable





{{{
Line 742: Line 998:
When `main()` returns, the `profile` module will print a table of function
calls and execution times. The output can be tweaked using the `Stats`
class included with the module. From Python 2.4 `profile` has permitted the
time consumed by Python builtins and functions in extension modules to be
profiled as well.


When `main()` returns, the `profile` module will print a table of function calls and execution times. The output can be tweaked using the `Stats` class included with the module. From Python 2.4 `profile` has permitted the time consumed by Python builtins and functions in extension modules to be profiled as well.
Line 750: Line 1005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060506162444/http://wingware.com/doc/howtos/performance-profiling-python-code 
http://web.archive.org/web/20060506162444/http://wingware.com/doc/howtos/performance-profiling-python-code
Line 754: Line 1011:
Line 759: Line 1017:
The
[[http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-trace.html|trace module]]
is a spin-off of the profile module I wrote originally
to perform some crude statement level test coverage. It's been heavily
modified by several other people since I released my initial crude
effort. As of Python 2.0 you should find trace.py in the Tools/scripts
directory of the Python distribution. Starting with Python 2.3 it's in
the standard library (the Lib directory). You can copy it to your local
bin directory and set the execute permission, then execute it directly.
It's easy to run from the command line to trace execution of whole scripts:

The [[http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-trace.html|trace module]] is a spin-off of the profile module I wrote originally to perform some crude statement level test coverage. It's been heavily modified by several other people since I released my initial crude effort. As of Python 2.0 you should find trace.py in the Tools/scripts directory of the Python distribution. Starting with Python 2.3 it's in the standard library (the Lib directory). You can copy it to your local bin directory and set the execute permission, then execute it directly. It's easy to run from the command line to trace execution of whole scripts:



Line 774: Line 1028:
In Python 2.4 it's even easier to run. Just execute {{{python -m trace}}}.

There's no separate documentation, but you can execute "pydoc trace" to
view the inline documentation.

In Python 2.4 it's even easier to run. Just execute {{{python -m trace}}}.


There's no separate documentation, but you can execute "pydoc trace" to view the inline documentation.
Line 781: Line 1037:
Line 783: Line 1040:
Line 784: Line 1042:

Line 788: Line 1048:
Line 790: Line 1051:
Line 791: Line 1053:

Line 797: Line 1061:
Line 799: Line 1064:
Line 800: Line 1066:

Line 803: Line 1071:


[[https://bitbucket.org/ogrisel/pyprof2calltree|PyProf2CallTree]] is a script to help visualize profiling data collected with the cProfile python module with the [[http://kcachegrind.sourceforge.net/html/Home.html|kcachegrind]] graphical calltree analyser.


Typical usage:


{{{
python -m cProfile -o stat.prof MYSCRIPY.PY [ARGS...]
python pyprof2calltree.py -i stat.prof -k
}}}

Line 804: Line 1086:
CategoryDocumentation
[[
CategoryDocumentation|CategoryDocumentation]]

This page is devoted to various tips and tricks that help improve the performance of your Python programs. Wherever the information comes from someone else, I've tried to identify the source.

Python has changed in some significant ways since I first wrote my "fast python" page in about 1996, which means that some of the orderings will have changed. I migrated it to the Python wiki in hopes others will help maintain it.

You should always test these tips with your application and the specific version of the Python implementation you intend to use and not just blindly accept that one method is faster than another. See the profiling section for more details.

Also new since this was originally written are packages like Cython, Pyrex, Psyco, Weave, Shed Skin and PyInline, which can dramatically improve your application's performance by making it easier to push performance-critical code into C or machine language.

Other Versions

Overview: Optimize what needs optimizing

You can only know what makes your program slow after first getting the program to give correct results, then running it to see if the correct program is slow. When found to be slow, profiling can show what parts of the program are consuming most of the time. A comprehensive but quick-to-run test suite can then ensure that future optimizations don't change the correctness of your program. In short:

  1. Get it right.
  2. Test it's right.
  3. Profile if slow.
  4. Optimise.
  5. Repeat from 2.

Certain optimizations amount to good programming style and so should be learned as you learn the language. An example would be moving the calculation of values that don't change within a loop, outside of the loop.

Choose the Right Data Structure

TBD.

Sorting

Sorting lists of basic Python objects is generally pretty efficient. The sort method for lists takes an optional comparison function as an argument that can be used to change the sorting behavior. This is quite convenient, though it can significantly slow down your sorts, as the comparison function will be called many times. In Python 2.4, you should use the key argument to the built-in sort instead, which should be the fastest way to sort.

Only if you are using older versions of Python (before 2.4) does the following advice from Guido van Rossum apply:

An alternative way to speed up sorts is to construct a list of tuples whose first element is a sort key that will sort properly using the default comparison, and whose second element is the original list element. This is the so-called Schwartzian Transform, also known as DecorateSortUndecorate (DSU).

Suppose, for example, you have a list of tuples that you want to sort by the n-th field of each tuple. The following function will do that.

def sortby(somelist, n):
    nlist = [(x[n], x) for x in somelist]
    nlist.sort()
    return [val for (key, val) in nlist]

Matching the behavior of the current list sort method (sorting in place) is easily achieved as well:

def sortby_inplace(somelist, n):
    somelist[:] = [(x[n], x) for x in somelist]
    somelist.sort()
    somelist[:] = [val for (key, val) in somelist]
    return

Here's an example use:

>>> somelist = [(1, 2, 'def'), (2, -4, 'ghi'), (3, 6, 'abc')]
>>> somelist.sort()
>>> somelist
[(1, 2, 'def'), (2, -4, 'ghi'), (3, 6, 'abc')]
>>> nlist = sortby(somelist, 2)
>>> sortby_inplace(somelist, 2)
>>> nlist == somelist
True
>>> nlist = sortby(somelist, 1)
>>> sortby_inplace(somelist, 1)
>>> nlist == somelist
True

From Tim Delaney

From Python 2.3 sort is guaranteed to be stable.

(to be precise, it's stable in CPython 2.3, and guaranteed to be stable in Python 2.4)

Python 2.4 adds an optional key parameter which makes the transform a lot easier to use:

# E.g. n = 1
n = 1
import operator
nlist.sort(key=operator.itemgetter(n))
# use sorted() if you don't want to sort in-place:
# sortedlist = sorted(nlist, key=operator.itemgetter(n))

Note that the original item is never used for sorting, only the returned key - this is equivalent to doing:

# E.g. n = 1
n = 1
nlist = [(x[n], i, x) for (i, x) in enumerate(nlist)]
nlist.sort()
nlist = [val for (key, index, val) in nlist]

String Concatenation

The accuracy of this section is disputed with respect to later versions of Python. In CPython 2.5, string concatenation is fairly fast, although this may not apply likewise to other Python implementations. See ConcatenationTestCode for a discussion.

Strings in Python are immutable. This fact frequently sneaks up and bites novice Python programmers on the rump. Immutability confers some advantages and disadvantages. In the plus column, strings can be used as keys in dictionaries and individual copies can be shared among multiple variable bindings. (Python automatically shares one- and two-character strings.) In the minus column, you can't say something like, "change all the 'a's to 'b's" in any given string. Instead, you have to create a new string with the desired properties. This continual copying can lead to significant inefficiencies in Python programs.

Avoid this:

s = ""
for substring in list:
    s += substring

Use s = "".join(list) instead. The former is a very common and catastrophic mistake when building large strings. Similarly, if you are generating bits of a string sequentially instead of:

s = ""
for x in list:
    s += some_function(x)

use

slist = [some_function(elt) for elt in somelist]
s = "".join(slist)

Avoid:

out = "<html>" + head + prologue + query + tail + "</html>"

Instead, use

out = "<html>%s%s%s%s</html>" % (head, prologue, query, tail)

Even better, for readability (this has nothing to do with efficiency other than yours as a programmer), use dictionary substitution:

out = "<html>%(head)s%(prologue)s%(query)s%(tail)s</html>" % locals()

This last two are going to be much faster, especially when piled up over many CGI script executions, and easier to modify to boot. In addition, the slow way of doing things got slower in Python 2.0 with the addition of rich comparisons to the language. It now takes the Python virtual machine a lot longer to figure out how to concatenate two strings. (Don't forget that Python does all method lookup at runtime.)

Loops

Python supports a couple of looping constructs. The for statement is most commonly used. It loops over the elements of a sequence, assigning each to the loop variable. If the body of your loop is simple, the interpreter overhead of the for loop itself can be a substantial amount of the overhead. This is where the map function is handy. You can think of map as a for moved into C code. The only restriction is that the "loop body" of map must be a function call. Besides the syntactic benefit of list comprehensions, they are often as fast or faster than equivalent use of map.

Here's a straightforward example. Instead of looping over a list of words and converting them to upper case:

newlist = []
for word in oldlist:
    newlist.append(word.upper())

you can use map to push the loop from the interpreter into compiled C code:

newlist = map(str.upper, oldlist)

List comprehensions were added to Python in version 2.0 as well. They provide a syntactically more compact and more efficient way of writing the above for loop:

newlist = [s.upper() for s in oldlist]

Generator expressions were added to Python in version 2.4. They function more-or-less like list comprehensions or map but avoid the overhead of generating the entire list at once. Instead, they return a generator object which can be iterated over bit-by-bit:

iterator = (s.upper() for s in oldlist)

Which method is appropriate will depend on what version of Python you're using and the characteristics of the data you are manipulating.

Guido van Rossum wrote a much more detailed (and succinct) examination of loop optimization that is definitely worth reading.

Avoiding dots...

Suppose you can't use map or a list comprehension? You may be stuck with the for loop. The for loop example has another inefficiency. Both newlist.append and word.upper are function references that are reevaluated each time through the loop. The original loop can be replaced with:

upper = str.upper
newlist = []
append = newlist.append
for word in oldlist:
    append(upper(word))

This technique should be used with caution. It gets more difficult to maintain if the loop is large. Unless you are intimately familiar with that piece of code you will find yourself scanning up to check the definitions of append and upper.

Local Variables

The final speedup available to us for the non-map version of the for loop is to use local variables wherever possible. If the above loop is cast as a function, append and upper become local variables. Python accesses local variables much more efficiently than global variables.

def func():
    upper = str.upper
    newlist = []
    append = newlist.append
    for word in oldlist:
        append(upper(word))
    return newlist

At the time I originally wrote this I was using a 100MHz Pentium running BSDI. I got the following times for converting the list of words in /usr/share/dict/words (38,470 words at that time) to upper case:

Version Time (seconds)
Basic loop 3.47
Eliminate dots 2.45
Local variable & no dots 1.79
Using map function 0.54

Initializing Dictionary Elements

Suppose you are building a dictionary of word frequencies and you've already broken your text up into a list of words. You might execute something like:

wdict = {}
for word in words:
    if word not in wdict:
        wdict[word] = 0
    wdict[word] += 1

Except for the first time, each time a word is seen the if statement's test fails. If you are counting a large number of words, many will probably occur multiple times. In a situation where the initialization of a value is only going to occur once and the augmentation of that value will occur many times it is cheaper to use a try statement:

wdict = {}
for word in words:
    try:
        wdict[word] += 1
    except KeyError:
        wdict[word] = 1

It's important to catch the expected KeyError exception, and not have a default except clause to avoid trying to recover from an exception you really can't handle by the statement(s) in the try clause.

A third alternative became available with the release of Python 2.x. Dictionaries now have a get() method which will return a default value if the desired key isn't found in the dictionary. This simplifies the loop:

wdict = {}
get = wdict.get
for word in words:
    wdict[word] = get(word, 0) + 1

When I originally wrote this section, there were clear situations where one of the first two approaches was faster. It seems that all three approaches now exhibit similar performance (within about 10% of each other), more or less independent of the properties of the list of words.

Also, if the value stored in the dictionary is an object or a (mutable) list, you could also use the dict.setdefault method, e.g.

   4     wdict.setdefault(key, []).append(new_element)

You might think that this avoids having to look up the key twice. It actually doesn't (even in python 3.0), but at least the double lookup is performed in C.

Another option is to use the defaultdict class:

from collections import defaultdict

wdict = defaultdict(int)

for word in words:
    wdict[word] += 1

Import Statement Overhead

import statements can be executed just about anywhere. It's often useful to place them inside functions to restrict their visibility and/or reduce initial startup time. Although Python's interpreter is optimized to not import the same module multiple times, repeatedly executing an import statement can seriously affect performance in some circumstances.

Consider the following two snippets of code (originally from Greg McFarlane, I believe - I found it unattributed in a comp.lang.python python-list@python.org posting and later attributed to him in another source):

def doit1():
    import string ###### import statement inside function
    string.lower('Python')

for num in range(100000):
    doit1()

or:

import string ###### import statement outside function
def doit2():
    string.lower('Python')

for num in range(100000):
    doit2()

doit2 will run much faster than doit1, even though the reference to the string module is global in doit2. Here's a Python interpreter session run using Python 2.3 and the new timeit module, which shows how much faster the second is than the first:

>>> def doit1():
... import string
... string.lower('Python')
...
>>> import string
>>> def doit2():
... string.lower('Python')
...
>>> import timeit
>>> t = timeit.Timer(setup='from __main__ import doit1', stmt='doit1()')
>>> t.timeit()
11.479144930839539
>>> t = timeit.Timer(setup='from __main__ import doit2', stmt='doit2()')
>>> t.timeit()
4.6661689281463623

String methods were introduced to the language in Python 2.0. These provide a version that avoids the import completely and runs even faster:

def doit3():
    'Python'.lower()

for num in range(100000):
    doit3()

Here's the proof from timeit:

>>> def doit3():
... 'Python'.lower()
...
>>> t = timeit.Timer(setup='from __main__ import doit3', stmt='doit3()')
>>> t.timeit()
2.5606080293655396

The above example is obviously a bit contrived, but the general principle holds.

Note that putting an import in a function can speed up the initial loading of the module, especially if the imported module might not be required. This is generally a case of a "lazy" optimization -- avoiding work (importing a module, which can be very expensive) until you are sure it is required.

This is only a significant saving in cases where the module wouldn't have been imported at all (from any module) -- if the module is already loaded (as will be the case for many standard modules, like string or re), avoiding an import doesn't save you anything. To see what modules are loaded in the system look in sys.modules.

A good way to do lazy imports is:

email = None

def parse_email():
    global email
    if email is None:
        import email
    ...

This way the email module will only be imported once, on the first invocation of parse_email().

Data Aggregation

Function call overhead in Python is relatively high, especially compared with the execution speed of a builtin function. This strongly suggests that where appropriate, functions should handle data aggregates. Here's a contrived example written in Python.

import time
x = 0
def doit1(i):
    global x
    x = x + i

list = range(100000)
t = time.time()
for i in list:
    doit1(i)

print "%.3f" % (time.time()-t)

vs.

import time
x = 0
def doit2(list):
    global x
    for i in list:
        x = x + i

list = range(100000)
t = time.time()
doit2(list)
print "%.3f" % (time.time()-t)

Here's the proof in the pudding using an interactive session:

>>> t = time.time()
>>> for i in list:
... doit1(i)
...
>>> print "%.3f" % (time.time()-t)
0.758
>>> t = time.time()
>>> doit2(list)
>>> print "%.3f" % (time.time()-t)
0.204

Even written in Python, the second example runs about four times faster than the first. Had doit been written in C the difference would likely have been even greater (exchanging a Python for loop for a C for loop as well as removing most of the function calls).

Doing Stuff Less Often

The Python interpreter performs some periodic checks. In particular, it decides whether or not to let another thread run and whether or not to run a pending call (typically a call established by a signal handler). Most of the time there's nothing to do, so performing these checks each pass around the interpreter loop can slow things down. There is a function in the sys module, setcheckinterval, which you can call to tell the interpreter how often to perform these periodic checks. Prior to the release of Python 2.3 it defaulted to 10. In 2.3 this was raised to 100. If you aren't running with threads and you don't expect to be catching many signals, setting this to a larger value can improve the interpreter's performance, sometimes substantially.

Python is not C

It is also not Perl, Java, C++ or Haskell. Be careful when transferring your knowledge of how other languages perform to Python. A simple example serves to demonstrate:

% timeit.py -s 'x = 47' 'x * 2'
loops, best of 3: 0.574 usec per loop
% timeit.py -s 'x = 47' 'x << 1'
loops, best of 3: 0.524 usec per loop
% timeit.py -s 'x = 47' 'x + x'
loops, best of 3: 0.382 usec per loop

Now consider the similar C programs (only the add version is shown):

#include <stdio.h>

int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
 int i = 47;
 int loop;
 for (loop=0; loop<500000000; loop++)
  i + i;
 return 0;
}

and the execution times:

% for prog in mult add shift ; do
< for i in 1 2 3 ; do
< echo -n "$prog: "
< /usr/bin/time ./$prog
< done
< echo
< done
mult: 6.12 real 5.64 user 0.01 sys
mult: 6.08 real 5.50 user 0.04 sys
mult: 6.10 real 5.45 user 0.03 sys

add: 6.07 real 5.54 user 0.00 sys
add: 6.08 real 5.60 user 0.00 sys
add: 6.07 real 5.58 user 0.01 sys

shift: 6.09 real 5.55 user 0.01 sys
shift: 6.10 real 5.62 user 0.01 sys
shift: 6.06 real 5.50 user 0.01 sys

Note that there is a significant advantage in Python to adding a number to itself instead of multiplying it by two or shifting it left by one bit. In C on all modern computer architectures, each of the three arithmetic operations are translated into a single machine instruction which executes in one cycle, so it doesn't really matter which one you choose.

A common "test" new Python programmers often perform is to translate the common Perl idiom

while (<>) {
    print;
}

into Python code that looks something like

import fileinput

for line in fileinput.input():
    print line,

and use it to conclude that Python must be much slower than Perl. As others have pointed out numerous times, Python is slower than Perl for some things and faster for others. Relative performance also often depends on your experience with the two languages.

Use xrange instead of range

This section no longer applies if you're using Python 3, where range now provides an iterator over ranges of arbitrary size, and where xrange no longer exists.

Python has two ways to get a range of numbers: range and xrange. Most people know about range, because of its obvious name. xrange, being way down near the end of the alphabet, is much less well-known.

xrange is a generator object, basically equivalent to the following Python 2.3 code:

def xrange(start, stop=None, step=1):
    if stop is None:
        stop = start
        start = 0
    else:
        stop = int(stop)
    start = int(start)
    step = int(step)

    while start < stop:
        yield start
        start += step

Except that it is implemented in pure C.

xrange does have limitations. Specifically, it only works with ints; you cannot use longs or floats (they will be converted to ints, as shown above).

It does, however, save gobs of memory, and unless you store the yielded objects somewhere, only one yielded object will exist at a time. The difference is thus: When you call range, it creates a list containing so many number (int, long, or float) objects. All of those objects are created at once, and all of them exist at the same time. This can be a pain when the number of numbers is large.

xrange, on the other hand, creates no numbers immediately - only the range object itself. Number objects are created only when you pull on the generator, e.g. by looping through it. For example:

xrange(sys.maxint) # No loop, and no call to .next, so no numbers are instantiated

And for this reason, the code runs instantly. If you substitute range there, Python will lock up; it will be too busy allocating sys.maxint number objects (about 2.1 billion on the typical PC) to do anything else. Eventually, it will run out of memory and exit.

In Python versions before 2.2, xrange objects also supported optimizations such as fast membership testing (i in xrange(n)). These features were removed in 2.2 due to lack of use.

Re-map Functions at runtime

Say you have a function

 class Test:
   def check(self,a,b,c):
     if a == 0:
       self.str = b*100
     else:
       self.str = c*100

 a = Test()
 def example():
   for i in xrange(0,100000):
     a.check(i,"b","c")

 import profile
 profile.run("example()")

And suppose this function gets called from somewhere else many times.

Well, your check will have an if statement slowing you down all the time except the first time, so you can do this:

 class Test2:
   def check(self,a,b,c):
     self.str = b*100
     self.check = self.check_post
   def check_post(self,a,b,c):
     self.str = c*100

 a = Test2()
 def example2():
   for i in xrange(0,100000):
     a.check(i,"b","c")

 import profile
 profile.run("example2()")

Well, this example is fairly inadequate, but if the 'if' statement is a pretty complicated expression (or something with lots of dots), you can save yourself evaluating it, if you know it will only be true the first time.

Profiling Code

The first step to speeding up your program is learning where the bottlenecks lie. It hardly makes sense to optimize code that is never executed or that already runs fast. I use two modules to help locate the hotspots in my code, profile and trace. In later examples I also use the timeit module, which is new in Python 2.3.

(!) See the separate profiling document for alternatives to the approaches given below.

Profiling

There are a number of profiling modules included in the Python distribution. Using one of these to profile the execution of a set of functions is quite easy. Suppose your main function is called main, takes no arguments and you want to execute it under the control of the profile module. In its simplest form you just execute

import profile
profile.run('main()')

When main() returns, the profile module will print a table of function calls and execution times. The output can be tweaked using the Stats class included with the module. From Python 2.4 profile has permitted the time consumed by Python builtins and functions in extension modules to be profiled as well.

A slightly longer description of profiling using the profile and pstats modules can be found here (archived version):

http://web.archive.org/web/20060506162444/http://wingware.com/doc/howtos/performance-profiling-python-code

The cProfile and Hotshot Modules

Since Python 2.2, the hotshot package has been available as a replacement for the profile module, although the cProfile module is now recommended in preference to hotshot. The underlying module is written in C, so using hotshot (or cProfile) should result in a much smaller performance hit, and thus a more accurate idea of how your application is performing. There is also a hotshotmain.py program in the distribution's Tools/scripts directory which makes it easy to run your program under hotshot control from the command line.

Trace Module

The trace module is a spin-off of the profile module I wrote originally to perform some crude statement level test coverage. It's been heavily modified by several other people since I released my initial crude effort. As of Python 2.0 you should find trace.py in the Tools/scripts directory of the Python distribution. Starting with Python 2.3 it's in the standard library (the Lib directory). You can copy it to your local bin directory and set the execute permission, then execute it directly. It's easy to run from the command line to trace execution of whole scripts:

% trace.py -t spam.py eggs

In Python 2.4 it's even easier to run. Just execute python -m trace.

There's no separate documentation, but you can execute "pydoc trace" to view the inline documentation.

Visualizing Profiling Results

RunSnakeRun is a GUI tool by Mike Fletcher which visualizes profile dumps from cProfile using square maps. Function/method calls may be sorted according to various criteria, and source code may be displayed alongside the visualization and call statistics.

An example usage:

runsnake some_profile_dump.prof

Gprof2Dot is a python based tool that can transform profiling results output into a graph that can be converted into a PNG image or SVG.

A typical profiling session with python 2.5 looks like this (on older platforms you will need to use actual script instead of the -m option):

python -m cProfile -o stat.prof MYSCRIPY.PY [ARGS...]
python -m pbp.scripts.gprof2dot -f pstats -o stat.dot stat.prof
dot -ostat.png -Tpng stat.dot

PyCallGraph pycallgraph is a Python module that creates call graphs for Python programs. It generates a PNG file showing an modules's function calls and their link to other function calls, the amount of times a function was called and the time spent in that function.

Typical usage:

pycallgraph scriptname.py

PyProf2CallTree is a script to help visualize profiling data collected with the cProfile python module with the kcachegrind graphical calltree analyser.

Typical usage:

python -m cProfile -o stat.prof MYSCRIPY.PY [ARGS...]
python pyprof2calltree.py -i stat.prof -k


CategoryDocumentation

PythonSpeed/PerformanceTips (last edited 2016-04-17 10:40:47 by LarsKruse)

Unable to edit the page? See the FrontPage for instructions.