Develop Reference

Does every simple mathematical operation use the same amount of power (as in, battery power)?

Recently I have been revising some of my old python codes, which are essentially loops of algebra, in order to have them execute faster, generally by eliminating some un-necessary operations. Often, changing the value of an entry in a list from 0 (as a python float, which I believe is a double by default) to the same value, which is obviously not necessary. Or, checking if a float is equal to something, when it MUST be that thing, because a preceeding "if" would not have triggered if it wasn't, or some other extraneous operation. This got me wondering about what will preserve my battery more, as I do a some of my coding on the bus where I can't plug my laptop in.
For example, which of the following two operations would be expected to use less battery power?
if b != 0: #b was assigned previously, and I know it is zero already
b = 0
or:
b = 0
The first one checks if b is zero, and it is, so it doesn't do the next part. The second one just assigns b to zero without bothering to check. I believe the first one is more time-efficient, as you don't have to change anything in memory. Is that correct, and if so, would it also be more power-efficient? Does "more time efficient" always imply "more power efficient"?

I suggest watching this talk by Chandler Carruth: "Efficiency with Algorithms, Performance with Data Structures"
He addresses the idea of "Power efficient instructions" at 4m 49s in the video. I agree with him, thinking about how much watt particular code consumes is useless. As he put it
Q: "How to save battery life?"
A: "Finish ruining the program".
Also, in Python you do not have low level control to be even thinking about low level problems like this. Use appropriate data structures and algorithms, and pray that Python interpreter will give you well optimized byte-code.

Does every simple mathematical operation use the same amount of power (as in, battery power)?
No. It's not the same to compute a two number addition than a fourier transform of a 20 megapixel photo.
I believe the first one is more time-efficient, as you don't have to change anything in memory. Is that correct, and if so, would it also be more power-efficient? Does "more time efficient" always imply "more power efficient"?
Yes. You are right on your intuitions but these are very trivial examples. And if you dig deeper you will get into uncharted territory of weird optimization that's quite difficult to grasp (e.g., see this question: Times two faster than bit shift?)

In general the more your code utilizes system resources the greater power those resources would use. However it is more useful to optimize your code based on time or size constraints instead of thinking about high level code in terms of power draw.
One way of doing this is Big O notation. In essence, Big O notation is a way of comparing the size and or runtime complexity of an algorithm. https://rob-bell.net/2009/06/a-beginners-guide-to-big-o-notation/
A computer at its lowest level is large quantity of transistors which require power to change and maintain their state.
It would be extremely difficult to anticipate how much power any one line of python code would draw.

I once had questions like this. Still do sometimes. Here's the answer I wish someone told me earlier.
Summary
You are correct that generally, if your computer does less work, it'll use less power.
But we have to be really careful in figuring out which logical operations involve more work and which ones involve less work - in this case:
Reading vs writing memory is usually the same amount of work.
if and any other conditional execution also costs work.
Python's "simple operations" are not "simple operations" for the CPU.
But the idea you had is probably correct for some cases you had in mind.
If you're concerned about power consumption, measure where power is being used.
For some perspective: You're asking about which Python code costs you one more drop of water, but really in Python every operation costs a bucket and your whole Python program is using a river and your computer as a whole is using an ocean.
Direct Answers
Don't apply these answers to Python yet. Read the rest of the answer first, because there's so much indirection between Python and the CPU that you'll mislead yourself about how they're connected if you don't take that into account.
I believe the first one is more time-efficient, as you don't have to change anything in memory.
As a general rule, reading memory is just as slow as writing to memory, or even slower depending on exactly what your computer is doing. For further reading you'll want to look into CPU memory cache levels, memory access times, and how out-of-order execution and data dependencies factor into modern CPU architectures.
As a general rule, the if statement in a language is itself an operation which can have a non-negligible cost. For further reading you should look into how CPU pipelining relates to branch prediction and branch penalties. Also look into how if statements are implemented in typical CPU instruction sets.
Does "more time efficient" always imply "more power efficient"?
As a general rule, more work efficient (doing less work - less machine instructions, for example) implies more power efficient, because on modern hardware (this wasn't always this way) your hardware will use less power when it's not doing anything.
You should be careful about the idea of "more time efficient" though, because modern hardware doesn't always execute the same amount of work in the same amount of time: for further reading you'll want to look into CPU frequency scaling, ARM's big.LITTLE architectures, and discussions about the "Race to Idle" concept as a starting point.
"One Simple Operation" - CPU vs. Python
Your question is about Python, so it's important to realize that Python's x != 0, if, and x = 0 do not map directly to simple operations in the CPU.
For further reading, especially if you're familiar with C, I would recommend taking a long look at how Python is implemented. There are many implementations - the main one is CPython, which is a C program that reads and interprets Python source, converts it into Python "bytecode" and then when running interprets that bytecode one by one.
As a baseline, if you're using Python, any one "simple" operation is actually a lot of CPU operations, as each step in the Python interpreter is multiple CPU operations, but which ones cost more might be surprising.
Let's break down the three used in our example (I'm primarily describing this from the perspective of the main Python implementation written in C, called "CPython", which I am the most closely familiar with, but in general this explanation is roughly applicable to all of them, though some will be able to optimize out certain steps):
x != 0
It looks like a simple operation, and if this was C and x was an int it would be just one machine instruction - but Python allows for operator overloading, so first Python has to:
look up x (at least one memory read, but may involve one or more hashmap lookups in Python's internals, which is many machine operations),
check the type of x (more memory reading),
based on the type look up a function pointer that implements the not-equality operation (one or arbitrarily many memory reads and one or more arbitrarily many conditional branches, with data dependencies between them),
only then it can finally call that function with references to Python objects holding the values of x and 0 (which is also not "free" - look up function calling ABI for more on that).
All that and more has to be done by the CPU even if x is a Python int or float mapping closely to the CPU's native numerical data types.
x = 0
An assignment is actually far cheaper in Python (though still not trivial): it only has to get as far as step 1 above, because once it knows "where" x is, it can just overwrite that pointer with the pointer to the Python object representing 0.
if
Abstractly speaking, the Python if statement has to be able to handle "truthy" and "falsey" values, which in the most naive implementation would involves running through more CPU instructions to evaluate what result of the condition is according to Python's semantics of what's true and what's false.
Sidenote About Optimizations
Different Python implementations go to different lengths to get Python operations closer to as few CPU operations in possible. For example, an optimizing JIT (Just In Time) compiler might notice that, inside some loop on an array, all elements of the array are native integers and actually reduce the if x != 0 and x = 0 parts into their respective minimal machine instructions, but that only happens in very specific circumstances when the optimizing logic can prove that it can safely bypass a lot of the behavior it would normally need to do.
The biggest thing here is this: a high-level language like Python is so removed from the hardware that "simple" operations are often complex "under the covers".
What You Asked vs. What I Think You Wanted To Ask
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the use-case you actually had in mind was this:
if x != 0:
# some code
x = 0
vs. this:
if x != 0:
# some code
x = 0
In that case, the first option is superior to the second, because you are already paying the cost of if x != 0 anyway.
Last Point of Emphasis
The hardest breakthrough for me was moving away from trying to reason about individual instructions in my head, and instead switching into looking at how things work and measuring real systems.
Looking at how things work will teach you how to optimize, but measuring will show you where to optimize.
This question is great for exploring the former, but for your stated motivation of reducing power consumption on your laptop, you would benefit more from the latter.

Is Python allowed to optimize a function definition to eliminate unused code?

If I defined a function like this:
def ccid_year(seq):
year, prefix, index, suffix = seq
return year
Is Python allowed to optimize it to be effectively:
def ccid_year(seq):
return seq[0]
I'd prefer to write the first function because it documents the format of the data being passed in but would hope that Python would generate code that is effectively as efficient as the second definition.

The two functions are not equivalent:
def ccid_year_1(seq):
year, prefix, index, suffix = seq
return year
def ccid_year_2(seq):
return seq[0]
arg = {1:'a', 2:'b', 0:'c', 3:'d'}
print ccid_year_1(arg)
print ccid_year_2(arg)
The first call prints 0 and the second prints c.

I'll answer the question at face value later, but first: When in doubt, benchmark it! But first, recall that most time is spent in a small portion of the code (i.e., most code is irrelevant to performance!) and, in CPython, function call overhead usually dominates small inefficiencies. Not to mention that large-scale algorithmic inefficiencies (a.k.a. freaking stupid code) dwarfs micro-optimization concerns.
So either don't worry about this at all, or if you have reason to worry about it, first benchmark alternatives and second don't put it in a function. Note that "reasons to worry about it" must be weighted against the time spent worrying, and the maintenance burden (if there is one) of the manual optimization.
CPython, the reference implementation you most like use, is very conservative about optimizing at this level. While there is a peephole optimizer operating on bytecode, it is limited in scale. More generally, you can't expect much optimization crossing a single statement. The problem with statically optimizing Python code is that there's a billion ways even the most innocently-looking program frament can call into arbitrary code, which might do anything at all, so you can't omit these calls.
While we're at it, your proposed optimization is invalid (in the sense that the program doesn't have the same behavior) if seq is of the wrong type (not a sequence, or a very weird sequence) or length (not exactly three items long)! Any program claiming to implement Python must maintain such differences, so it won't do the transformation you suggest literally. I assume this was just an off-hand illustration, but it does indicate you seriously underestimate how complex Python is (to implement, and doubly so to optimize). I and others have written about this at length before, so I'll stop now before this post becomes even larger.
PyPy on the other hand will, if this function is indeed called from a hot loop, probably optimize this and a million other things you didn't even think of, while compiling it down to a machine code loop that iterates faster than any Python loop could ever iterate on CPython. It will still contain a few checks to break out of the loop and take the proper action (e.g. raise an exception) if necessary, but they'll also be highly efficient if not triggered.
I do not know much about IronPython and Jython and other implementations, but if their lack of consistent several-times-faster-than-CPython benchmark results is any indicator, they do not perform significant optimizations. While the VMs IronPython and Jython include JIT compilers (not - but not quite - entirely unlike PyPy's), these JIT compilers are built for very different languages, and I'd be very surprised if they could look through the mess of code IronPython/Jython must execute to achieve Python semantics and perform such optimizations on it.

Optimizing Python Code [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been working on one of the coding challenges on InterviewStreet.com and I've run into a bit of an efficiency problem. Can anyone suggest where I might change the code to make it faster and more efficient?
Here's the code
Here's the problem statement if you're interested

If your question is about optimising python code generally (which I think it should be ;) then there are all sorts of intesting things you can do, but first:
You probably shouldn't be obsessively optimising python code! If you're using the fastest algorithm for the problem you're trying to solve and python doesn't do it fast enough you should probably be using a different language.
That said, there are several approaches you can take (because sometimes, you really do want to make python code faster):
Profile (do this first!)
There are lots of ways of profiling python code, but there are two that I'll mention: cProfile (or profile) module, and PyCallGraph.
cProfile
This is what you should actually use, though interpreting the results can be a bit daunting.
It works by recording when each function is entered or exited, and what the calling function was (and tracking exceptions).
You can run a function in cProfile like this:
import cProfile
cProfile.run('myFunction()', 'myFunction.profile')
Then to view the results:
import pstats
stats = pstats.Stats('myFunction.profile')
stats.strip_dirs().sort_stats('time').print_stats()
This will show you in which functions most of the time is spent.
PyCallGraph
PyCallGraph provides a prettiest and maybe the easiest way of profiling python programs -- and it's a good introduction to understanding where the time in your program is spent, however it adds significant execution overhead
To run pycallgraph:
pycallgraph graphviz ./myprogram.py
Simple! You get a png graph image as output (perhaps after a while...)
Use Libraries
If you're trying to do something in python that a module already exists for (maybe even in the standard library), then use that module instead!
Most of the standard library modules are written in C, and they will execute hundreds of times faster than equivilent python implementations of, say, bisection search.
Make the Interpreter do as Much of Your Work as You Can
The interpreter will do some things for you, like looping. Really? Yes! You can use the map, reduce, and filter keywords to significantly speed up tight loops:
consider:
for x in xrange(0, 100):
doSomethingWithX(x)
vs:
map(doSomethingWithX, xrange(0,100))
Well obviously this could be faster because the interpreter only has to deal with a single statement, rather than two, but that's a bit vague... in fact, this is faster for two reasons:
all flow control (have we finished looping yet...) is done in the interpreter
the doSomethingWithX function name is only resolved once
In the for loop, each time around the loop python has to check exactly where the doSomethingWithX function is! even with cacheing this is a bit of an overhead.
Remember that Python is an Interpreted Language
(Note that this section really is about tiny tiny optimisations that you shouldn't let affect your normal, readable coding style!)
If you come from a background of a programming in a compiled language, like c or Fortran, then some things about the performance of different python statements might be surprising:
try:ing is cheap, ifing is expensive
If you have code like this:
if somethingcrazy_happened:
uhOhBetterDoSomething()
else:
doWhatWeNormallyDo()
And doWhatWeNormallyDo() would throw an exception if something crazy had happened, then it would be faster to arrange your code like this:
try:
doWhatWeNormallyDo()
except SomethingCrazy:
uhOhBetterDoSomething()
Why? well the interpreter can dive straight in and start doing what you normally do; in the first case the interpreter has to do a symbol look up each time the if statement is executed, because the name could refer to something different since the last time the statement was executed! (And a name lookup, especially if somethingcrazy_happened is global can be nontrivial).
You mean Who??
Because of cost of name lookups it can also be better to cache global values within functions, and bake-in simple boolean tests into functions like this:
Unoptimised function:
def foo():
if condition_that_rarely_changes:
doSomething()
else:
doSomethingElse()
Optimised approach, instead of using a variable, exploit the fact that the interpreter is doing a name lookup on the function anyway!
When the condition becomes true:
foo = doSomething # now foo() calls doSomething()
When the condition becomes false:
foo = doSomethingElse # now foo() calls doSomethingElse()
PyPy
PyPy is a python implementation written in python. Surely that means it will run code infinitely slower? Well, no. PyPy actually uses a Just-In-Time compiler (JIT) to run python programs.
If you don't use any external libraries (or the ones you do use are compatible with PyPy), then this is an extremely easy way to (almost certainly) speed up repetitive tasks in your program.
Basically the JIT can generate code that will do what the python interpreter would, but much faster, since it is generated for a single case, rather than having to deal with every possible legal python expression.
Where to look Next
Of course, the first place you should have looked was to improve your algorithms and data structures, and to consider things like caching, or even whether you need to be doing so much in the first place, but anyway:
This page of the python.org wiki provides lots of information about how to speed up python code, though some of it is a bit out of date.
Here's the BDFL himself on the subject of optimising loops.
There are quite a few things, even from my own limited experience that I've missed out, but this answer was long enough already!
This is all based on my own recent experiences with some python code that just wasn't fast enough, and I'd like to stress again that I don't really think any of what I've suggested is actually a good idea, sometimes though, you have to....

First off, profile your code so you know where the problems lie. There are many examples of how to do this, here's one: https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/3393/im-trying-to-understand-how-to-make-my-application-more-efficient
You do a lot of indexed access as in:
for pair in range(i-1, j):
if coordinates[pair][0] >= 0 and coordinates[pair][1] >= 0:
Which could be written more plainly as:
for coord in coordinates[i-1:j]:
if coord[0] >= 0 and cood[1] >= 0:
List comprehensions are cool and "pythonic", but this code would probably run faster if you didn't create 4 lists:
N = int(raw_input())
coordinates = []
coordinates = [raw_input() for i in xrange(N)]
coordinates = [pair.split(" ") for pair in coordinates]
coordinates = [[int(pair[0]), int(pair[1])] for pair in coordinates]
I would instead roll all those together into one simple loop or if you're really dead set on list comprehensions, encapsulate the multiple transformations into a function which operates on the raw_input().

This answer shows how I locate code to optimize.
Suppose there is some line of code you could replace, and it is costing, say, 40% of the time.
Then it resides on the call stack 40% of the time.
If you take 10 samples of the call stack, it will appear on 4 of them, give or take.
It really doesn't matter how many samples show it.
If it appears on two or more, and if you can replace it, you will save whatever time it costs.

Most of the interview street problems seem to be tested in a way that will verify that you have found an algorithm with the right big O complexity rather than that you have coded the solution in the most optimal way possible.
In other words if you are failing some of the test cases due to running out of time the problem is likely that you need to figure out a solution with lower algorithmic complexity rather than micro-optimize the algorithm you have. This is why they generally state that N can be quite large.

Does creating separate functions instead of one big one slow processing time?

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.

Is python automagically parallelizing IO- and CPU- or memory-bound sections?

This is a follow-up questions on a previous one.
Consider this code, which is less toyish than the one in the previous question (but still much simpler than my real one)
import sys
data=[]
for line in open(sys.argv[1]):
data.append(line[-1])
print data[-1]
Now, I was expecting a longer run time (my benchmark file is 65150224 lines long), possibly much longer. This was not the case, it runs in ~ 2 minutes on the same hw as before!
Is it data.append() very lightweight? I don't believe so, thus I wrote this fake code to test it:
data=[]
counter=0
string="a\n"
for counter in xrange(65150224):
data.append(string[-1])
print data[-1]
This runs in 1.5 to 3 minutes (there is strong variability among runs)
Why don't I get 3.5 to 5 minutes in the former program? Obviously data.append() is happening in parallel with the IO.
This is good news!
But how does it work? Is it a documented feature? Is there any requirement on my code that I should follow to make it works as much as possible (besides load-balancing IO and memory/CPU activities)? Or is it just plain buffering/caching in action?
Again, I tagged "linux" this question, because I'm interested only in linux-specific answers. Feel free to give OS-agnostic, or even other-OS answers, if you think it's worth doing.

Obviously data.append() is happening in parallel with the IO.
I'm afraid not. It is possible to parallelize IO and computation in Python, but it doesn't happen magically.
One thing you could do is use posix_fadvise(2) to give the OS a hint that you plan to read the file sequentially (POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL).
In some rough tests doing "wc -l" on a 600 meg file (an ISO) the performance increased by about 20%. Each test was done immediately after clearing the disk cache.
For a Python interface to fadvise see python-fadvise.

How big are the lines in your file? If they're not very long (anything under about 1K probably qualifies) then you're likely seeing performance gains because of input buffering.

Why do you think list.append() would be a slower operation? It is extremely fast, considering the internal pointer arrays used by lists to hold references to the objects in them are allocated in increasingly large blocks, so that every append does not actually re-allocate the array, and most can simply increment the length counter and set a pointer and incref.

I don't see any evidence that "data.append() is happening in parallel with the IO." Like Benji, I don't think this is automatic in the way you think. You showed that doing data.append(line[-1]) takes about the same amount of time as lc = lc + 1 (essentially no time at all, compared to the IO and line splitting). It's not really surprising that data.append(line[-1]) is very fast. One would expect the whole line to be in a fast cache, and as noted append prepares buffers ahead of time and only rarely has to reallocate. Moreover, line[-1] will always be '\n', except possibly for the last line of the file (no idea if Python optimizes for this).
The only part I'm a little surprised about is that the xrange is so variable. I would expect it to always be faster, since there's no IO, and you're not actually using the counter.

If your run times are varying by that amount for the second example, I'd suspect your method of timing or outside influences (other processes / system load) to be skewing the times to the point where they don't give any reliable information.