By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
448,693 Members | 1,132 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 448,693 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Counting iterations

P: n/a
Is there a better way to count iterations that this?:

pets = 0
for i in pets:
pets += 1
print "pet" + "#" + pets

Thanks,
Derek Basch

Jul 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
Derek Basch wrote:
Is there a better way to count iterations that this?:

pets = 0
for i in pets:
pets += 1
print "pet" + "#" + pets


for i, pet in enumerate(pets):
print 'pet#%i' % (i + 1)

STeVe
Jul 18 '05 #2

P: n/a
Derek Basch wrote:
Is there a better way to count iterations that this?:

pets = 0
for i in pets:
pets += 1
print "pet" + "#" + pets


You can use 'enumerate' to get the index, but the code above wont work -
you are trying to iterate over a non-sequence.

Will McGugan

--
"".join( [ {'@':'@','.':'.'}.get(c,None) or chr(97+((ord(c)-97)+13)%26)
for c in "jv**@jvyyzpthtna.pbz" ] )
Jul 18 '05 #3

P: n/a
ooops you are right. Should have been:

pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]
num_pets = 0
for i in pets:
num_pets += 1
print "pet" + "#" + num_pets

That's the problem with one offs. I don't read them :).

Jul 18 '05 #4

P: n/a
Derek Basch wrote:
ooops you are right. Should have been:

pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]
num_pets = 0
for i in pets:
num_pets += 1
print "pet" + "#" + num_pets


Traceback (most recent call last):
File "example.py", line 5, in ?
print "pet" + "#" + num_pets
TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects

</F>

Jul 18 '05 #5

P: n/a
You should avoid the "a" + "b" + "c" -kind of concatenation. As strings
at immutable in Python you actually makes copies all the time and it's
slow!

The alternative used in Steven Bethard's example is preferable.

Jul 18 '05 #6

P: n/a
runes wrote:
You should avoid the "a" + "b" + "c" -kind of concatenation. As strings
at immutable in Python you actually makes copies all the time and it's
slow!


The OP wrote

print "pet" + "#" + num_pets

(properly str(num_pets) )

You recommended the "alternative used in Steven Bethard's example"

print 'pet#%i' % (i + 1)

because "it's slow". I disagree, it isn't for this code.
It's comparable in performance to interpolation and most
of the time is spent in converting int -> string. Indeed
if the object to be merged is a string then the addition
version is faster than interpolation.

Here's the details.

The string concatenation performance that you're
talking about doesn't hit until there are multiple
appends to the same string, where "multiple" is rather
more than 2. The advice usually applies to things like

text = ""
for line in open(filename, "U"):
text += line

which is much slower than, say
lines = []
for line in open(filename, "U")
lines.append(line)
text = "".join(lines)

or the more modern
text = "".join(open(filename, "U"))

to say nothing of
text = open(filename, "U").read() :)

Anyway, to get back to the example at hand,
consider what happens in

"pet#%i" % (i+1)

(NOTE: most times that's written %d instead of %i)

The run-time needs to parse the format string
and construct a new string from the components.
Internally it does the same thing as

"pet#" + str(i+1)

except that it's done at the C level instead
Python and the implementation overallocates
100 bytes so there isn't an extra allocation
in cases like this.

Personally I would expect the "%" code to be
about the same performance as the "+" code.
Of course the real test is in the timing.
Here's what I tried. NOTE: I reformatted by
hand to make it more readable. Line breaks and
the \ continuation character may have introduced
bugs.

First, the original code along with the 'str()'
correction.

% python /usr/local/lib/python2.3/timeit.py -s \
'pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]' \
'num_pets=0' 'for pet in pets:' \
' num_pets += 1' \
' s="pet" + "#" + str(num_pets)'
100000 loops, best of 3:
14.5 usec per loop
There's no need for the "pet" + "#" so I'll
turn that into "pet#"

% python /usr/local/lib/python2.3/timeit.py -s \
'pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]' \
'num_pets=0' \
'for pet in pets:' \
' num_pets += 1' \
' s="pet#" + str(num_pets)'
100000 loops, best of 3: 12.8 usec per loop

That's 1.3 extra usecs.

By comparison here's the "%" version.

% python /usr/local/lib/python2.3/timeit.py -s \
'pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]'\
'num_pets=0' \
'for pet in pets:' \
' num_pets += 1' \
' s="pet#%s" % num_pets'
100000 loops, best of 3: 10.8 usec per loop

I'm surprised that it's that much faster - a
good 2 microseconds and that isn't the only
code in that loop.

But both the "%" and "+" solutions need to
convert the number into a string. If I
use an existing string I find

% python /usr/local/lib/python2.3/timeit.py -s \
'pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]' \
'num_pets=0' \
'for pet in pets:' \
' num_pets += 1' \
' s="pet#" + pet'
100000 loops, best of 3: 4.62 usec per loop

So really most of the time - about 8 usec - is
spent in converting int -> string and the
hit for string concatenation or interpolation
isn't as big a problem.

Compare with the string interpolation form
of the last version

% python /usr/local/lib/python2.3/timeit.py -s \
'pets = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]' \
'num_pets=0' 'for pet in pets:' \
' num_pets += 1' \
' s="pet#%s" % pet' \
100000 loops, best of 3: 7.55 usec per loop
In this case you can see that the % version is
slower (by 2usec) than the + version.

I therefore disagree with the idea that simple
string concatenation is always to be eschewed
over string interpolation.

Andrew
da***@dalkescientific.com

Jul 18 '05 #7

P: n/a
Andrew Dalke wrote:
"pet#%i" % (i+1)

(NOTE: most times that's written %d instead of %i)


Any reason to prefer %d over %i? The library reference seems to suggest
that they're the same thing[1]. I've typically used %i since I can
remember it from the int type, like I can remember %f from the float
type. Is there any reason not to?

STeVe

[1] http://docs.python.org/lib/typesseq-strings.html
Jul 18 '05 #8

P: n/a

[Andrew Dalke]
I therefore disagree with the idea that simple
string concatenation is always to be eschewed
over string interpolation.


Andrew, what you write makes sense. I've never really tested it, just
read it several places, fx here:
http://www.python.org/moin/PythonSpe...Tips#stringcat

Jul 18 '05 #9

P: n/a
Interesting stuff Andrew. I do generally avoid string concantination
for the reason listed in the Python Performance Tips but your analysis
kinda puts that in question. Such a dense discussion for me just trying
to find the enumerate() function :). I guess that is why the python
list is so great. You guys always rip my code apart and correct my
style. Even if it is just a stupid one off example.

Thanks everyone,
Derek Basch

Jul 18 '05 #10

P: n/a

"runes" <ru*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

[Andrew Dalke]
I therefore disagree with the idea that simple
string concatenation is always to be eschewed
over string interpolation.

String cat (+) is fine for joining a few short strings.
Andrew, what you write makes sense. I've never really tested it, just
read it several places, fx here:
http://www.python.org/moin/PythonSpe...Tips#stringcat


This is about making long strings in situations where performance is an
issue.

Terry J. Reedy

Jul 18 '05 #11

P: n/a
Derek Basch wrote:
Interesting stuff Andrew. I do generally avoid string concantination
for the reason listed in the Python Performance Tips but your analysis
kinda puts that in question.


Thanks.

It was interesting for me to. I hadn't looked at the implementation
for string % before and was rather surprised to find that it
overallocates 100 bytes to reduce the number of allocs done. It's
simpler than the implementation I considered.

Andrew
da***@dalkescientific.com

Jul 18 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.