Message312793
The constant function call overhead doesn't make a big difference:
$ /opt/python3.7-opt/bin/python3 -m timeit 'list(i for i in range(1000))'
5000 loops, best of 5: 55 usec per loop
$ /opt/python3.7-opt/bin/python3 -m timeit '[i for i in range(1000)]'
10000 loops, best of 5: 30.7 usec per loop
The difference is that comprehensions are generally more efficient than generators, simply because they are more specialised. When a generator is created, it does not know whether it will be passed into list() to quickly unpack it into a list, or into some complex machinery that just requests one value per year, or only one value at all and then throws it away.
I searched a bit, but couldn't find a ticket about the performance difference above, although I'm sure there must be one. So I'll leave this open for now, assuming that there might still be something to improve here. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2018-02-25 09:54:32 | scoder | set | recipients:
+ scoder, Antony.Lee |
2018-02-25 09:54:32 | scoder | set | messageid: <1519552472.31.0.467229070634.issue32945@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2018-02-25 09:54:32 | scoder | link | issue32945 messages |
2018-02-25 09:54:31 | scoder | create | |
|