I am currently trying to implement fold/reduce in Python, since I don't like the version from functools. This naturally involved implementing something like the Lisp CDR function, since Python doesn't seem to have anything like it. Here is what I am thinking of trying:
def tail(lat):
# all elements of list except first
acc = []
for i in range(1,len(lat)):
acc = acc + [lat[i]]
Would this be an efficient way of implementing this function? Am I missing some kind of built-in function? Thanks in advance!
"Something like the Lisp CDR function" is trivial:
acc[1:]
This will be significantly faster than your attempt, but only by a constant factor.
However, it doesn't make much sense to do this in the first place. The whole point of CDR is that, when your lists are linked lists stored in CONS cells, going from one cell to its tail is a single machine-language operation. But with arrays (which is what Python lists are), acc[1:]—or the more complicated thing you tried to write, or in fact any possible implementation—allocates a whole new array of size N-1 and copies over N-1 values.
The efficiency cost of doing that over and over again (in an algorithm that was expecting it to be nearly free) is going to be so huge that the constant-factor speedup of using acc[1:] is unlikely to be nearly enough of an improvemnt to make it acceptable.
Most algorithms that are fast with CDR are going to be slow with this kind of slicing, and most algorithms that are fast with this kind of slicing would be slow with CDR. That's why we have multiple data structures in the first place: because they're good for different things.
If you want to know the most efficient way to fold/reduce on an array—it's the way functools.reduce (and the variations of it that libraries like toolz offer) do it: just iterate.
And just iterating has another huge advantage. Python doesn't just have lists, it has an abstraction called iterables, which include iterators and other types that can generate their contents lazily. If you're folding forward, you can take advantage of that laziness. (Folding backward does of course take linear space, either explicitly or on the stack—but it's still better than quadratic copying.) Ignoring that fact defeats the purpose.
Related
I understand the concept behind Generators and why one would choose that over lists.., but i'm struggling so much with getting quality practice by actually implementing them in my coding..Any suggestions on the type of problems I should play around with? I did the 'Fibonacci' code already but would like to practice with other types that would put generators to good use.--thanks--
How about this one: implement a generator that reads chunks from a large file or a big database (so big that it wouldn't fit into the memory). Alternatively, consider a stream of infinitely many values as input.
As you might already have learned, this is a common use case in real world applications:
https://docs.python.org/3/howto/functional.html
With a list comprehension, you get back a Python list; [...] Generator expressions return an iterator that computes the values as necessary, not needing to materialize all the values at once. This means that list comprehensions aren’t useful if you’re working with iterators that return an infinite stream or a very large amount of data. Generator expressions are preferable in these situations.
http://naiquevin.github.io/python-generators-and-being-lazy.html
Now you may ask how does this differ from an ordinary list and what is the use of all this anyway? The key difference is that the generator gives out new values on the fly and doesn't keep the elements in memory.
https://wiki.python.org/moin/Generators
The performance improvement from the use of generators is the result of the lazy (on demand) generation of values, which translates to lower memory usage. Furthermore, we do not need to wait until all the elements have been generated before we start to use them. This is similar to the benefits provided by iterators, but the generator makes building iterators easy.
I am new-ish to Python and I am finding that I am writing the same pattern of code over and over again:
def foo(list):
results = []
for n in list:
#do some or a lot of processing on N and possibly other variables
nprime = operation(n)
results.append(nprime)
return results
I am thinking in particular about the creation of the empty list followed by the append call. Is there a more Pythonic way to express this pattern? append might not have the best performance characteristics, but I am not sure how else I would approach it in Python.
I often know exactly the length of my output, so calling append each time seems like it might be causing memory fragmentation, or performance problems, but I am also wondering if that is just my old C ways tripping me up. I am writing a lot of text parsing code that isn't super performance sensitive on any particular loop or piece because all of the performance is really contained in gensim or NLTK code and is in much more capable hands than mine.
Is there a better/more pythonic pattern for doing this type of operation?
First, a list comprehension may be all you need (if all the processing mentioned in your comment occurs in operation.
def foo(list):
return [operation(n) for n in list]
If a list comprehension will not work in your situation, consider whether foo really needs to build the list and could be a generator instead.
def foo(list):
for n in list:
# Processing...
yield operation(n)
In this case, you can iterate over the sequence, and each value is calculated on demand:
for x in foo(myList):
...
or you can let the caller decide if a full list is needed:
results = list(foo())
If neither of the above is suitable, then building up the return list in the body of the loop as you are now is perfectly reasonable.
[..] so calling append each time seems like it might be causing memory fragmentation, or performance problems, but I am also wondering if that is just my old C ways tripping me up.
If you are worried about this, don't. Python over-allocates when a new resizing of the list is required (lists are dynamically resized based on their size) in order to perform O(1) appends. Either you manually call list.append or build it with a list comprehension (which internally also uses .append) the effect, memory wise, is similar.
The list-comprehension just performs (speed wise) a bit better; it is optimized for creating lists with specialized byte-code instructions that aid it (LIST_APPEND mainly that directly calls lists append in C).
Of course, if memory usage is of concern, you could always opt for the generator approach as highlighted in chepners answer to lazily produce your results.
In the end, for loops are still great. They might seem clunky in comparison to comprehensions and maps but they still offer a recognizable and readable way to achieve a goal. for loops deserve our love too.
In order to save space and the complexity of having to maintain the consistency of data between different sources, I'm considering storing start/end indices for some substrings instead of storing the substrings themselves. The trick is that if I do so, it's possible I'll be creating slices ALL the time. Is this something to be avoided? Is the slice operator fast enough I don't need to worry? How about the new object creation/destruction overhead?
Okay, I learned my lesson. Don't optimize unless there's a real problem you're trying to fix. (Of course this doesn't mean to right needlessly bad code, but that's beside the point...) Also, test and profile before coming to stack overflow. =D Thanks everyone!
Fast enough as opposed to what? How do you do it right now? What exactly are you storing, what exactly are you retrieving? The answer probably highly depends on this. Which brings us to ...
Measure! Don't discuss and analyze theoretically; try and measure what is the more performant way. Then decide whether the possible performance gain justifies refactoring your database.
Edit: I just ran a test measuring string slicing versus lookup in a dict keyed on (start, end) tuples. It suggests that there's not much of a difference. It's a pretty naive test, though, so take it with a pinch of salt.
In a comment the OP mentions bloat "in the database" -- but no information regarding what database he's talking about; from the scant information in that comment it would seem that Python string slices aren't necessarily what's involved, rather, the "slicing" would be done by the DB engine upon retrieval.
If that's the actual situation then I would recommend on general principles against storing redundant information in the DB -- a "normal form" (maybe in a lax sense of the expression;-) whereby information is stored just once and derived information is recomputed (or cached charge of the DB engine, etc;-) should be the norm, and "denormalization" by deliberately storing derived information very much the exception and only when justified by specific, well measured retrieval-performance needs.
If the reference to "database" was a misdirection;-), or rather used in a lax sense as I did for "normal form" above;-), then another consideration may apply: since Python strings are immutable, it would seem to be natural to not have to do slices by copying, but rather have each slice reuse part of the memory space of the parent it's being sliced from (much as is done for numpy arrays' slices). However that's not currently part of the Python core. I did once try a patch to that purpose, but the problem of adding a reference to the big string and thus making it stay in memory just because a tiny substring thereof is still referenced loomed large for general-purpose adaptation. Still it would be possible to make a special purpose subclass of string (and one of unicode) for the case in which the big "parent" string needs to stay in memory anyway. Currently buffer does a tiny bit of that, but you can't call string methods on a buffer object (without explicitly copying it to a string object first), so it's only really useful for output and a few special cases... but there's no real conceptual block against adding string method (I doubt that would be adopted in the core, but it should be decently easy to maintain as a third party module anyway;-).
The worth of such an approach can hardly be solidly proven by measurement, one way or another -- speed would be very similar to the current implicitly-copying approach; the advantage would come entirely in terms of reducing memory footprint, which wouldn't so much make any given Python code faster, but rather allow a certain program to execute on a machine with a bit less RAM, or multi-task better when several instances are being used at the same time in separate processes. See rope for a similar but richer approach once experimented with in the context of C++ (but note it didn't make it into the standard;-).
I haven't done any measurements either, but since it sounds like you're already taking a C approach to a problem in Python, you might want to take a look at Python's built-in mmap library:
Memory-mapped file objects behave like both strings and like file objects. Unlike normal string objects, however, these are mutable. You can use mmap objects in most places where strings are expected; for example, you can use the re module to search through a memory-mapped file. Since they’re mutable, you can change a single character by doing obj[index] = 'a', or change a substring by assigning to a slice: obj[i1:i2] = '...'. You can also read and write data starting at the current file position, and seek() through the file to different positions.
I'm not sure from your question if that's exactly what you're looking for. And it bears repeating that you need to take some measurements. Python's timeit library is the easy one to use, but there's also cProfile or hotshot, although hotshot is at risk of being removed from the standard library as I understand it.
Would slices be ineffective because they create copies of the source string? This may or may not be an issue. If it turns out to be an issue, would it not be possible to simply implement a "String view"; an object that has a reference to the source string and has a start and end point.. Upon access/iteration, it just reads from the source string.
premature optimization is the rool of all evil.
Prove to yourself that you really have a need to optimize code, then act.
I'm working in the Google App Engine environment and programming in Python. I am creating a function that essentially generates a random number/letter string and then stores to the memcache.
def generate_random_string():
# return a random 6-digit long string
def check_and_store_to_memcache():
randomstring = generate_random_string()
#check against memcache
#if ok, then store key value with another value
#if not ok, run generate_random_string() again and check again.
Does creating two functions instead of just one big one affect performance? I prefer two, as it better matches how I think, but don't mind combining them if that's "best practice".
Focus on being able to read and easily understand your code.
Once you've done this, if you have a performance problem, then look into what might be causing it.
Most languages, python included, tend to have fairly low overhead for making method calls. Putting this code into a single function is not going to (dramatically) change the performance metrics - I'd guess that your random number generation will probably be the bulk of the time, not having 2 functions.
That being said, splitting functions does have a (very, very minor) impact on performance. However, I'd think of it this way - it may take you from going 80 mph on the highway to 79.99mph (which you'll never really notice). The important things to watch for are avoiding stoplights and traffic jams, since they're going to make you have to stop altogether...
In almost all cases, "inlining" functions to increase speed is like getting a hair cut to lose weight.
Reed is right. For the change you're considering, the cost of a function call is a small number of cycles, and you'd have to be doing it 10^8 or so times per second before you'd notice.
However, I would caution that often people go to the other extreme, and then it is as if function calls were costly. I've seen this in over-designed systems where there were many layers of abstraction.
What happens is there is some human psychology that says if something is easy to call, then it is fast. This leads to writing more function calls than strictly necessary, and when this occurs over multiple layers of abstraction, the wastage can be exponential.
Following Reed's driving example, a function call can be like a detour, and if the detour contains detours, and if those also contain detours, soon there is tremendous time being wasted, for no obvious reason, because each function call looks innocent.
Like others have said, I wouldn't worry about it in this particular scenario. The very small overhead involved in function calls would pale in comparison to what is done inside each function. And as long as these functions don't get called in rapid succession, it probably wouldn't matter much anyway.
It is a good question though. In some cases it's best not to break code into multiple functions. For example, when working with math intensive tasks with nested loops it's best to make as few function calls as possible in the inner loop. That's because the simple math operations themselves are very cheap, and next to that the function-call-overhead can cause a noticeable performance penalty.
Years ago I discovered the hypot (hypotenuse) function in the math library I was using in a VC++ app was very slow. It seemed ridiculous to me because it's such a simple set of functionality -- return sqrt(a * a + b * b) -- how hard is that? So I wrote my own and managed to improve performance 16X over. Then I added the "inline" keyword to the function and made it 3X faster than that (about 50X faster at this point). Then I took the code out of the function and put it in my loop itself and saw yet another small performance increase. So... yeah, those are the types of scenarios where you can see a difference.
I'm writing an application in Python (2.6) that requires me to use a dictionary as a data store.
I am curious as to whether or not it is more memory efficient to have one large dictionary, or to break that down into many (much) smaller dictionaries, then have an "index" dictionary that contains a reference to all the smaller dictionaries.
I know there is a lot of overhead in general with lists and dictionaries. I read somewhere that python internally allocates enough space that the dictionary/list # of items to the power of 2.
I'm new enough to python that I'm not sure if there are other unexpected internal complexities/suprises like that, that is not apparent to the average user that I should take into consideration.
One of the difficulties is knowing how the power of 2 system counts "items"? Is each key:pair counted as 1 item? That's seems important to know because if you have a 100 item monolithic dictionary then space 100^2 items would be allocated. If you have 100 single item dictionaries (1 key:pair) then each dictionary would only be allocation 1^2 (aka no extra allocation)?
Any clearly laid out information would be very helpful!
Three suggestions:
Use one dictionary.
It's easier, it's more straightforward, and someone else has already optimized this problem for you. Until you've actually measured your code and traced a performance problem to this part of it, you have no reason not to do the simple, straightforward thing.
Optimize later.
If you are really worried about performance, then abstract the problem make a class to wrap whatever lookup mechanism you end up using and write your code to use this class. You can change the implementation later if you find you need some other data structure for greater performance.
Read up on hash tables.
Dictionaries are hash tables, and if you are worried about their time or space overhead, you should read up on how they're implemented. This is basic computer science. The short of it is that hash tables are:
average case O(1) lookup time
O(n) space (Expect about 2n, depending on various parameters)
I do not know where you read that they were O(n^2) space, but if they were, then they would not be in widespread, practical use as they are in most languages today. There are two advantages to these nice properties of hash tables:
O(1) lookup time implies that you will not pay a cost in lookup time for having a larger dictionary, as lookup time doesn't depend on size.
O(n) space implies that you don't gain much of anything from breaking your dictionary up into smaller pieces. Space scales linearly with number of elements, so lots of small dictionaries will not take up significantly less space than one large one or vice versa. This would not be true if they were O(n^2) space, but lucky for you, they're not.
Here are some more resources that might help:
The Wikipedia article on Hash Tables gives a great listing of the various lookup and allocation schemes used in hashtables.
The GNU Scheme documentation has a nice discussion of how much space you can expect hashtables to take up, including a formal discussion of why "the amount of space used by the hash table is proportional to the number of associations in the table". This might interest you.
Here are some things you might consider if you find you actually need to optimize your dictionary implementation:
Here is the C source code for Python's dictionaries, in case you want ALL the details. There's copious documentation in here:
dictobject.h
dictobject.c
Here is a python implementation of that, in case you don't like reading C.
(Thanks to Ben Peterson)
The Java Hashtable class docs talk a bit about how load factors work, and how they affect the space your hash takes up. Note there's a tradeoff between your load factor and how frequently you need to rehash. Rehashes can be costly.
If you're using Python, you really shouldn't be worrying about this sort of thing in the first place. Just build your data structure the way it best suits your needs, not the computer's.
This smacks of premature optimization, not performance improvement. Profile your code if something is actually bottlenecking, but until then, just let Python do what it does and focus on the actual programming task, and not the underlying mechanics.
"Simple" is generally better than "clever", especially if you have no tested reason to go beyond "simple". And anyway "Memory efficient" is an ambiguous term, and there are tradeoffs, when you consider persisting, serializing, cacheing, swapping, and a whole bunch of other stuff that someone else has already thought through so that in most cases you don't need to.
Think "Simplest way to handle it properly" optimize much later.
Premature optimization bla bla, don't do it bla bla.
I think you're mistaken about the power of two extra allocation does. I think its just a multiplier of two. x*2, not x^2.
I've seen this question a few times on various python mailing lists.
With regards to memory, here's a paraphrased version of one such discussion (the post in question wanted to store hundreds of millions integers):
A set() is more space efficient than a dict(), if you just want to test for membership
gmpy has a bitvector type class for storing dense sets of integers
Dicts are kept between 50% and 30% empty, and an entry is about ~12 bytes (though the true amount will vary by platform a bit).
So, the fewer objects you have, the less memory you're going to be using, and the fewer lookups you're going to do (since you'll have to lookup in the index, then a second lookup in the actual value).
Like others, said, profile to see your bottlenecks. Keeping an membership set() and value dict() might be faster, but you'll be using more memory.
I'd also suggest reposting this to a python specific list, such as comp.lang.python, which is full of much more knowledgeable people than myself who would give you all sorts of useful information.
If your dictionary is so big that it does not fit into memory, you might want to have a look at ZODB, a very mature object database for Python.
The 'root' of the db has the same interface as a dictionary, and you don't need to load the whole data structure into memory at once e.g. you can iterate over only a portion of the structure by providing start and end keys.
It also provides transactions and versioning.
Honestly, you won't be able to tell the difference either way, in terms of either performance or memory usage. Unless you're dealing with tens of millions of items or more, the performance or memory impact is just noise.
From the way you worded your second sentence, it sounds like the one big dictionary is your first inclination, and matches more closely with the problem you're trying to solve. If that's true, go with that. What you'll find about Python is that the solutions that everyone considers 'right' nearly always turn out to be those that are as clear and simple as possible.
Often times, dictionaries of dictionaries are useful for other than performance reasons. ie, they allow you to store context information about the data without having extra fields on the objects themselves, and make querying subsets of the data faster.
In terms of memory usage, it would stand to reason that one large dictionary will use less ram than multiple smaller ones. Remember, if you're nesting dictionaries, each additional layer of nesting will roughly double the number of dictionaries you need to allocate.
In terms of query speed, multiple dicts will take longer due to the increased number of lookups required.
So I think the only way to answer this question is for you to profile your own code. However, my suggestion is to use the method that makes your code the cleanest and easiest to maintain. Of all the features of Python, dictionaries are probably the most heavily tweaked for optimal performance.