以下是几种不同方法的基准:
from __future__ import print_function
import timeit
from operator import itemgetter
def f1(d, l):
'''map'''
return list(map(d.get, l))
def f2(d, l):
'''itemgetter'''
return itemgetter(*l)(d)
def f3(d, l):
'''list comprehension'''
return [d[k] for k in l]
def f4(d, l):
'''WRONG, but map and filter'''
return list(map(lambda k: d[k], filter(d.get, l)))
def f5(d, l):
'''simple for loop'''
rtr=[]
for e in l:
rtr.append(d[e])
return rtr
def f6(d, l):
'''CORRECTED map, filter '''
return list(map(lambda k: d[k], filter(d.__contains__, l)))
if __name__ == '__main__':
s=10000000
d={'W{}'.format(k):k for k in range(s)}
l=['W{}'.format(x) for x in range(0,s,4)]
times=[]
for f in (f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6):
times.append((f.__doc__, timeit.timeit('f(d,l)', setup="from __main__ import f, d, l", number=10)))
for e in sorted(times, key=itemgetter(1)):
print('{:30}{:10.3f} seconds'.format(*e))
对于 Python 2.7,打印:
itemgetter 4.109 seconds
list comprehension 4.467 seconds
map 5.450 seconds
simple for loop 6.132 seconds
CORRECTED map, filter 11.283 seconds
WRONG, but map and filter 11.852 seconds
Python 3.4:
itemgetter 5.196 seconds
list comprehension 5.224 seconds
map 5.923 seconds
simple for loop 6.548 seconds
WRONG, but map and filter 9.080 seconds
CORRECTED map, filter 9.931 seconds
PyPy:
list comprehension 4.450 seconds
map 4.718 seconds
simple for loop 5.962 seconds
itemgetter 7.952 seconds
WRONG, but map and filter 8.962 seconds
CORRECTED map, filter 9.909 seconds
您可以看到,即使使用与 OP 所述大小相似的字典(1,000,000 个元素),简单的“for”循环也可以与更高级的方法竞争。列表理解是非常有竞争力的。
您还可以看到看起来花哨的东西并不是那么好。
过早的优化是万恶之源