6 ms·

Precisely my thought :). Also, what about the builtin array module? https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/array.html https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/array.ht

• dr_zoidberg 7y ago
  Well, given that they didn't even use pythonic constructs, I'm not quite sure what to think of the article: In [1]: import random In [2]: r = [random.randrange(100) for _ in range(100000)] In [3]: x, y = random.sample(r, 1000), random.sample(r, 1000) In [4]: %timeit z = [x[i] + y[i] for i in range(1000)] 106 µs ± 1.28 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each) In [5]: %timeit z = [i + j for i, j in zip(x, y)] 67.3 µs ± 3.38 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each) (under python 3.6.3) For those that "don't see it", what I'm seeing is that, instead of looping over a zip of iterables, like they should be doing, they're using an "index range" to access each element by index -- not the best practice, and also results in a noticeable slowdown. Edit: And for the curious who might think they're different result: In [6]: z1 = [x[i] + y[i] for i in range(1000)] In [7]: z2 = [i + j for i, j in zip(x, y)] In [8]: z1 == z2 Out[8]: True Final edit: all in all, I'd say this is a low effort post, aimed at gathering attetion and showing "look how good we are that we know how to speed up python loops using numpy" (/s)... And I've successfully been python-nerd-sniped.
• marmaduke 7y ago
  > builtin array module? It's not for arithmetic but packing large amounts of data in memory efficiently. I've never seen it used, since NumPy usually is easier