mirror of
https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff.git
synced 2025-09-28 21:05:08 +00:00
33e9a6a54e
> ~Builtins are also more efficient than `for` loops.~
Let's not promise performance because this code transformation does not
deliver.
Benchmark written by @dcbaker
> `any()` seems to be about 1/3 as fast (Python 3.11.9, NixOS):
```python
loop = 'abcdef'.split()
found = 'f'
nfound = 'g'
def test1():
for x in loop:
if x == found:
return True
return False
def test2():
return any(x == found for x in loop)
def test3():
for x in loop:
if x == nfound:
return True
return False
def test4():
return any(x == nfound for x in loop)
if __name__ == "__main__":
import timeit
print('for loop (found) :', timeit.timeit(test1))
print('for loop (not found):', timeit.timeit(test3))
print('any() (found) :', timeit.timeit(test2))
print('any() (not found) :', timeit.timeit(test4))
```
```
for loop (found) : 0.051076093994197436
for loop (not found): 0.04388196699437685
any() (found) : 0.15422860698890872
any() (not found) : 0.15568504799739458
```
I have retested with longer lists and on multiple Python versions with
similar results.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| red_knot | ||
| red_knot_module_resolver | ||
| red_knot_python_semantic | ||
| red_knot_server | ||
| red_knot_wasm | ||
| red_knot_workspace | ||
| ruff | ||
| ruff_benchmark | ||
| ruff_cache | ||
| ruff_db | ||
| ruff_dev | ||
| ruff_diagnostics | ||
| ruff_formatter | ||
| ruff_index | ||
| ruff_linter | ||
| ruff_macros | ||
| ruff_notebook | ||
| ruff_python_ast | ||
| ruff_python_ast_integration_tests | ||
| ruff_python_codegen | ||
| ruff_python_formatter | ||
| ruff_python_index | ||
| ruff_python_literal | ||
| ruff_python_parser | ||
| ruff_python_resolver | ||
| ruff_python_semantic | ||
| ruff_python_stdlib | ||
| ruff_python_trivia | ||
| ruff_python_trivia_integration_tests | ||
| ruff_server | ||
| ruff_source_file | ||
| ruff_text_size | ||
| ruff_wasm | ||
| ruff_workspace | ||