The Art of Speeding Up Python Loop | by Casey Cheng | Oct, 2022
There is no “best” looping technique in Python, only the most suitable
“What is the fastest looping technique in Python?”
It’s a valid question, but often over-simplified. If there is a single looping method that is league above the rest, then the other techniques would have been deprecated.
Fact is, there is no “best”.
As with most things in life, there will be situations where one significantly outperforms the others, and in some other cases, it’s absolute garbage. They’re situational. A better way to think of looping optimisation in Python should look like this.
Each of them are useful in their own right. Rather than creating yet another speed test article, I’d like to highlight what makes them unique, when to use them, and how to make them better? You’ll be surprised that with a simple syntax tweak, we can improve their performance by up to 8000 times faster.
Types of Looping Techniques:
- Loop Iteration
- List Comprehension
- Lambda Function
- Vectorised Operation
For-loops are the entry level looping technique taught to Python beginners because they are easy to read and extremely versatile.
items = ['bat', 'cat', 'dog']
for item in items:
print(item)>> bat
>> cat
>> dog
However, many consider for-loops as the antithesis of efficient programming. They’re slow because Python’s implementation of for-loops have very heavy overheads (e.g: type checking, etc — to be discussed later) that is executed every time it iterates.
There are two main types of for-loops, namely (i) Index Loop and (ii) Row Loop.
Index Loop
An Index Loop takes a sequence of numbers (e.g: [0, 1, 2, …]) and runs your code logic for every element within the sequence.
On the first iteration, Python assigns the variable idx to the sequence’s first element (in this case, 0) before executing the code within the loop. Then, idx gets re-assigned to the second, third, … element, and the cycle repeats until the end of the sequence.
for idx in ['bat', 'cat', 'dog']:
print(f'Hello, I am index {idx}.')>> Hello, I am index 0.
>> Hello, I am index 1.
>> Hello, I am index 2.
An index loop is useful when we need control over the starting index, ending index, and step size of the sequence.
For example, if you want to loop from the 1000th to 2000th row…
res = 0
for idx in range(1000, 2000):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']
If you only need every 5th element from the 1000th to 2000th row…
res = 0
for idx in range(1000, 2000, 5):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']
Index loops are incredibly flexible, but they are generally perceived as slow looping techniques. While true to some extent, it doesn’t have to be! For benchmarking purposes, here’s a simple loop that returns the summation of the int column.
%%timeit
res = 0
for idx in range(0, 100000):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']>> 486 ms ± 4.28 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
We can achieve the same functionality, but with much better performance with a simple optimization trick — np.arange().
%%timeit
res = 0
for idx in np.arange(0, 100000):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']>> 60.3 µs ± 355 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
The same code, but np.arange() ran 8000 times faster than range().
Here’s why.
range() is a built-in Python class range that stores only the starting point, ending point, and step size of your desired sequence of numbers. The list of numbers gets generated iteratively under the hood only when we start to loop over the sequence. This saves memory because we don’t need to store the entire sequence all the time, but it hurts performance due to the overhead of generating the numbers.
np.arange(), on the other hand, is a third-party library (Numpy) function. Functionally, they are similar to range(), but NumPy implementation performs many operations, including looping, on the C-level which is much more performant compared to Python. They are optimized for working with vectors and avoid much Python-related overhead.
Since
range()andnp.arange()do the same thing, I recommend to always usenp.arange()when you need index loops.
Row Loop
A Row Loop iterates over the rows of Pandas DataFrame — 1st row, 2nd row, …, Nth row. Every time it iterates, it returns the row index and row data of that specific iteration. The most common implementation for row looping is the DataFrame.iterrows() function.
for idx, row in df.iterrows():
print(f'row_idx: {idx}, row_data: {row}')>> row_idx: 0, row_data:
animal bat
animal_type mammals
Name: 0, dtype: object>> row_idx: 1, row_data:
animal dog
animal_type mammals
Name: 1, dtype: object>> ...
Since row loop returns both row index and row data, this gives us an extra superpower — the ability to rename our row data. As per the example above, we can lump the row data into a row variable and access it through row['col_name'].
Instead of the usual df.loc[idx, 'col_name'] that we use in index looping, now the code reads, well, maybe a little bit more concise. But the real improvement kicks in when we unpack and rename each individual column, like so…
# Better
res = 0
for idx, row in df.iterrows():
res += row['col3']# Even better
%%timeit
res = 0
for idx, (col1, col2, col3) in df.iterrows():
res += col3>> 4.86 s ± 28.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
Much cleaner, right?
However, Row Loops are lagging behind Index Loops in terms of performance. We executed the same logic, but…
np.arange()took 0.0000603 seconds to run.range()took 0.486 seconds to run.DataFrame.iterrows()took 4.86 seconds to run.
The good news is — just like Index Loop — we can optimize it with just a simple change. Instead of iterrows(), use itertuples().
%%timeit
res = 0
for row in df.itertuples():
res += getattr(row, 'int')>> 160 ms ± 13.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
On the surface, we can see that itertuples() is 30x faster than iterrows(). But why? What’s the difference between iterrows() and itertuples()?
For the curious souls, here’s a great article that explains it in detail. The TLDR version…
iterrows()returns row data in aSeriesobject. It does not preserve data types so it has to execute a lot of type-checking when looping. More checking = slower looping.itertuples()returns row data in atuple. It preserves data types so minimal type checking is required. Less checking = faster looping, a lot faster.itertuples()is ~30 times faster thaniterrows()in our example.
If we need access to row data, it’s preferred to use Row Loop rather than Index Loop. Also, prioritise
itertuples()overiterrows()because it’s much faster.
Python List Comprehension is a short and sweet way to create a list object based on the values of an existing list. It has the following general expression.
List = [expression(i) for i in another_list if filter(i)]
So, instead of…
%%timeit
for (idx, animal, animal_type, _) in df.itertuples():
if animal == 'dog':
animal_type = 'mammals'
elif animal == 'frog':
animal_type = 'amphibians'
elif animal == 'goldfish':
animal_type = 'fish'
else:
animal_type = 'others'df.loc[idx, 'animal_type'] = animal_type>> 1min 41s ± 393 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
We can condense all that nonsense into just a few lines of code.
%%timeit
df['animal_type'] = ['mammals' if animal == 'dog' else
'amphibians' if animal == 'frog' else
'fish' if animal == 'goldfish' else
'others' for animal in df['animal']]>> 16.7 ms ± 92.3 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
List comprehension is not just more compact and easier to grasp, it also iterates faster than normal loops. In this case, list comprehension is ~6048 times faster than row loops!
Sadly, there is one limitation.
Notice how I didn’t use the same example as the other sections (where we benchmark performance based on the sum of int column)?
I can’t.
List comprehension’s syntax is simple, but the intention to keep it simple also restricts what it can do. For example, we can’t have a variable that stores the current sum of values when iterating. Even if I try a hack-ish way by specifying current_sum in a function outside of the list comprehension, it still uses the initial value of current_sum instead of updating on every iteration.
old_list = [10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
print(f'old_list is... {old_list}')current_sum = 0
def get_cumulative_sum(x, current_sum):
current_sum += x
return current_sumnew_list = [get_cumulative_sum(x, current_sum) for x in old_list]
print(f'new_list is... {new_list}')>> old_list is... [10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
>> new_list is... [10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
The big picture is that every list comprehension can be rewritten in for loop, but not every for loop can be rewritten in list comprehension. If you’re writing some complicated logic, avoid list comprehension.
All in all, list comprehension is just a syntactic sugar for iterations. It’s generally faster than normal loops but should only be used for simple code logic to remain readable.
When defining a function in Python (the usual way), we need to name the function. Lambda is an alternative way that allows us to create function, but without a name.
# The usual way
def multiply_two(x):
return x * 2# Lambda function
multiply_two = lambda x: x * 2
This type of “nameless” functions are called Immediately Invoked Function Expressions (IIFE). They are executed as soon as they are created and require no explicit call to invoke the function.
In layman’s term, IIFE runs faster.
But Lambda only creates the IIFE function, it doesn’t execute the function — which is why we usually see lambda function used together with Panda’s DataFrame.apply(). It takes a function (lambda or not) as argument and apply it to every rows (or columns).
# Apply the function to each column.
output = df.apply(lambda x: x*2, axis=0)# Apply the function to each row.
output = df.apply(lambda x: x*2, axis=1)
But just how fast are these functions? Let’s compare list comprehension and lambda functions.
%%timeit
def get_type(animal):
if animal == 'dog':
animal_type = 'mammals'
elif animal == 'frog':
animal_type = 'amphibians'
elif animal == 'goldfish':
animal_type = 'fish'
else:
animal_type = 'others'
return animal_type# List comprehension
df['animal_type'] = [get_type(x) for x in df['animal']]
>> 21.7 ms ± 140 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)# Lambda function
df['animal_type'] = df['animal'].apply(lambda x: get_type(x))
>> 24.6 ms ± 187 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
Although both list comprehension and lambda function are fundamentally different concepts, they have very similar characteristics…
- Performance — same.
- Flexibility — Both are more suited for simple code logic. We can’t create variable that tracks the output of previous iterations.
To summarise, lambda function and list comprehension are po-tae-toe and po-tah-toh. Use whichever syntax you are more comfortable with. Personally, I prefer list comprehension because they are more intuitive to read.
Vectorised operation is like moving a house. Would you rather…
- load one furniture, drive to your new house, unload, then repeat?
- load everything, drive to your new house and unload all at once?
The latter is definitely more efficient and it closely resembles how vectorised operations works.
On non-vectorised operation, the CPU loads a single value into its memory, perform computation and then return one output. It repeats this step for every loop iteration. But the kicker is that a CPU’s memory can store more than just a single value — meaning most of the CPU capacity are just idling.
On a vectorised operation, the CPU loads as much as it can fit into its memory so that we can perform computation, all at once. The savings in overhead helps to speed up the performance massively.
In addition to maximising CPU capacity, vectorised operation are often implemented in optimised, pre-compiled code written in low-level language (e.g: C). These languages are more performant than Python by nature, and they also avoid overheads such as data type checking etc.
Enough theory — here’s a simple vectorised operation in practice.
# Non-vectorised operation
def calc_result(row):
return row['col1'] +(row['col2'] * row['col3'])
df['result'] = df.apply(calc_result, axis=1)
>> 984 ms ± 16.3 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)# Vectorised operation
df['result'] = df['col1'] + (df['col2'] * df['col3'])
>> 227 µs ± 1.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)
Vectorised operation performed ~4350 times faster than non-vectorised operation. The code is intuitive and cleaner to read, too.
Other than executing mathematical operations for numbers, vectorised operations can perform non-compute operations, and for other data types too. Here’s a good reference of the possible string-type vectorised operations shared by Jake VanderPlas in his Python Data Science Handbook.
# Two examples of Vectorised Operation for String-type
df['result'] = df['String'].str.extract('([A-Za-z]+)', expand=False)
df['result'] = df['String'].str.split('T').str[0]# Two examples of Vectorised Operation for DateTime-type
df['result'] = df['Date'].dt.day_name()
df['result'] = df['Date'].dt.year
But, the very fact that vectorised operations loads and run everything simultaneously also means that it can only perform the same operation for every input value. If we want to divide a column by 2, it has to divide all the values in the column by 2, with no exceptions.
In other words, vectorised operations is one of the fastest way to iterate and has the cleanest syntax. They are great for applying simple and uniform operations across the entire sequence of data. But if we are trying to apply conditional logic (e.g; if-then), use Lambda functions or List Comprehension instead.
I hope this helps you see the benefits and limitations of each looping technique. The “best” looping technique will always depends on the type of logic you are implementing.
One final remark — this comparison is not exhaustive. Some small details are left out intentionally for simplicity reasons. The information here are generally correct, but you may run into slightly different performance for different use cases (e.g: vectorised operation are slower on strings). I recommend timing the loop yourself, and using line profiler if you really want to squeeze that optimisation juice.
Until then, good luck and godspeed.
There is no “best” looping technique in Python, only the most suitable
“What is the fastest looping technique in Python?”
It’s a valid question, but often over-simplified. If there is a single looping method that is league above the rest, then the other techniques would have been deprecated.
Fact is, there is no “best”.
As with most things in life, there will be situations where one significantly outperforms the others, and in some other cases, it’s absolute garbage. They’re situational. A better way to think of looping optimisation in Python should look like this.
Each of them are useful in their own right. Rather than creating yet another speed test article, I’d like to highlight what makes them unique, when to use them, and how to make them better? You’ll be surprised that with a simple syntax tweak, we can improve their performance by up to 8000 times faster.
Types of Looping Techniques:
- Loop Iteration
- List Comprehension
- Lambda Function
- Vectorised Operation
For-loops are the entry level looping technique taught to Python beginners because they are easy to read and extremely versatile.
items = ['bat', 'cat', 'dog']
for item in items:
print(item)>> bat
>> cat
>> dog
However, many consider for-loops as the antithesis of efficient programming. They’re slow because Python’s implementation of for-loops have very heavy overheads (e.g: type checking, etc — to be discussed later) that is executed every time it iterates.
There are two main types of for-loops, namely (i) Index Loop and (ii) Row Loop.
Index Loop
An Index Loop takes a sequence of numbers (e.g: [0, 1, 2, …]) and runs your code logic for every element within the sequence.
On the first iteration, Python assigns the variable idx to the sequence’s first element (in this case, 0) before executing the code within the loop. Then, idx gets re-assigned to the second, third, … element, and the cycle repeats until the end of the sequence.
for idx in ['bat', 'cat', 'dog']:
print(f'Hello, I am index {idx}.')>> Hello, I am index 0.
>> Hello, I am index 1.
>> Hello, I am index 2.
An index loop is useful when we need control over the starting index, ending index, and step size of the sequence.
For example, if you want to loop from the 1000th to 2000th row…
res = 0
for idx in range(1000, 2000):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']
If you only need every 5th element from the 1000th to 2000th row…
res = 0
for idx in range(1000, 2000, 5):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']
Index loops are incredibly flexible, but they are generally perceived as slow looping techniques. While true to some extent, it doesn’t have to be! For benchmarking purposes, here’s a simple loop that returns the summation of the int column.
%%timeit
res = 0
for idx in range(0, 100000):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']>> 486 ms ± 4.28 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
We can achieve the same functionality, but with much better performance with a simple optimization trick — np.arange().
%%timeit
res = 0
for idx in np.arange(0, 100000):
res += df.loc[idx, 'int']>> 60.3 µs ± 355 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
The same code, but np.arange() ran 8000 times faster than range().
Here’s why.
range() is a built-in Python class range that stores only the starting point, ending point, and step size of your desired sequence of numbers. The list of numbers gets generated iteratively under the hood only when we start to loop over the sequence. This saves memory because we don’t need to store the entire sequence all the time, but it hurts performance due to the overhead of generating the numbers.
np.arange(), on the other hand, is a third-party library (Numpy) function. Functionally, they are similar to range(), but NumPy implementation performs many operations, including looping, on the C-level which is much more performant compared to Python. They are optimized for working with vectors and avoid much Python-related overhead.
Since
range()andnp.arange()do the same thing, I recommend to always usenp.arange()when you need index loops.
Row Loop
A Row Loop iterates over the rows of Pandas DataFrame — 1st row, 2nd row, …, Nth row. Every time it iterates, it returns the row index and row data of that specific iteration. The most common implementation for row looping is the DataFrame.iterrows() function.
for idx, row in df.iterrows():
print(f'row_idx: {idx}, row_data: {row}')>> row_idx: 0, row_data:
animal bat
animal_type mammals
Name: 0, dtype: object>> row_idx: 1, row_data:
animal dog
animal_type mammals
Name: 1, dtype: object>> ...
Since row loop returns both row index and row data, this gives us an extra superpower — the ability to rename our row data. As per the example above, we can lump the row data into a row variable and access it through row['col_name'].
Instead of the usual df.loc[idx, 'col_name'] that we use in index looping, now the code reads, well, maybe a little bit more concise. But the real improvement kicks in when we unpack and rename each individual column, like so…
# Better
res = 0
for idx, row in df.iterrows():
res += row['col3']# Even better
%%timeit
res = 0
for idx, (col1, col2, col3) in df.iterrows():
res += col3>> 4.86 s ± 28.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
Much cleaner, right?
However, Row Loops are lagging behind Index Loops in terms of performance. We executed the same logic, but…
np.arange()took 0.0000603 seconds to run.range()took 0.486 seconds to run.DataFrame.iterrows()took 4.86 seconds to run.
The good news is — just like Index Loop — we can optimize it with just a simple change. Instead of iterrows(), use itertuples().
%%timeit
res = 0
for row in df.itertuples():
res += getattr(row, 'int')>> 160 ms ± 13.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
On the surface, we can see that itertuples() is 30x faster than iterrows(). But why? What’s the difference between iterrows() and itertuples()?
For the curious souls, here’s a great article that explains it in detail. The TLDR version…
iterrows()returns row data in aSeriesobject. It does not preserve data types so it has to execute a lot of type-checking when looping. More checking = slower looping.itertuples()returns row data in atuple. It preserves data types so minimal type checking is required. Less checking = faster looping, a lot faster.itertuples()is ~30 times faster thaniterrows()in our example.
If we need access to row data, it’s preferred to use Row Loop rather than Index Loop. Also, prioritise
itertuples()overiterrows()because it’s much faster.
Python List Comprehension is a short and sweet way to create a list object based on the values of an existing list. It has the following general expression.
List = [expression(i) for i in another_list if filter(i)]
So, instead of…
%%timeit
for (idx, animal, animal_type, _) in df.itertuples():
if animal == 'dog':
animal_type = 'mammals'
elif animal == 'frog':
animal_type = 'amphibians'
elif animal == 'goldfish':
animal_type = 'fish'
else:
animal_type = 'others'df.loc[idx, 'animal_type'] = animal_type>> 1min 41s ± 393 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
We can condense all that nonsense into just a few lines of code.
%%timeit
df['animal_type'] = ['mammals' if animal == 'dog' else
'amphibians' if animal == 'frog' else
'fish' if animal == 'goldfish' else
'others' for animal in df['animal']]>> 16.7 ms ± 92.3 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
List comprehension is not just more compact and easier to grasp, it also iterates faster than normal loops. In this case, list comprehension is ~6048 times faster than row loops!
Sadly, there is one limitation.
Notice how I didn’t use the same example as the other sections (where we benchmark performance based on the sum of int column)?
I can’t.
List comprehension’s syntax is simple, but the intention to keep it simple also restricts what it can do. For example, we can’t have a variable that stores the current sum of values when iterating. Even if I try a hack-ish way by specifying current_sum in a function outside of the list comprehension, it still uses the initial value of current_sum instead of updating on every iteration.
old_list = [10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
print(f'old_list is... {old_list}')current_sum = 0
def get_cumulative_sum(x, current_sum):
current_sum += x
return current_sumnew_list = [get_cumulative_sum(x, current_sum) for x in old_list]
print(f'new_list is... {new_list}')>> old_list is... [10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
>> new_list is... [10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
The big picture is that every list comprehension can be rewritten in for loop, but not every for loop can be rewritten in list comprehension. If you’re writing some complicated logic, avoid list comprehension.
All in all, list comprehension is just a syntactic sugar for iterations. It’s generally faster than normal loops but should only be used for simple code logic to remain readable.
When defining a function in Python (the usual way), we need to name the function. Lambda is an alternative way that allows us to create function, but without a name.
# The usual way
def multiply_two(x):
return x * 2# Lambda function
multiply_two = lambda x: x * 2
This type of “nameless” functions are called Immediately Invoked Function Expressions (IIFE). They are executed as soon as they are created and require no explicit call to invoke the function.
In layman’s term, IIFE runs faster.
But Lambda only creates the IIFE function, it doesn’t execute the function — which is why we usually see lambda function used together with Panda’s DataFrame.apply(). It takes a function (lambda or not) as argument and apply it to every rows (or columns).
# Apply the function to each column.
output = df.apply(lambda x: x*2, axis=0)# Apply the function to each row.
output = df.apply(lambda x: x*2, axis=1)
But just how fast are these functions? Let’s compare list comprehension and lambda functions.
%%timeit
def get_type(animal):
if animal == 'dog':
animal_type = 'mammals'
elif animal == 'frog':
animal_type = 'amphibians'
elif animal == 'goldfish':
animal_type = 'fish'
else:
animal_type = 'others'
return animal_type# List comprehension
df['animal_type'] = [get_type(x) for x in df['animal']]
>> 21.7 ms ± 140 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)# Lambda function
df['animal_type'] = df['animal'].apply(lambda x: get_type(x))
>> 24.6 ms ± 187 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
Although both list comprehension and lambda function are fundamentally different concepts, they have very similar characteristics…
- Performance — same.
- Flexibility — Both are more suited for simple code logic. We can’t create variable that tracks the output of previous iterations.
To summarise, lambda function and list comprehension are po-tae-toe and po-tah-toh. Use whichever syntax you are more comfortable with. Personally, I prefer list comprehension because they are more intuitive to read.
Vectorised operation is like moving a house. Would you rather…
- load one furniture, drive to your new house, unload, then repeat?
- load everything, drive to your new house and unload all at once?
The latter is definitely more efficient and it closely resembles how vectorised operations works.
On non-vectorised operation, the CPU loads a single value into its memory, perform computation and then return one output. It repeats this step for every loop iteration. But the kicker is that a CPU’s memory can store more than just a single value — meaning most of the CPU capacity are just idling.
On a vectorised operation, the CPU loads as much as it can fit into its memory so that we can perform computation, all at once. The savings in overhead helps to speed up the performance massively.
In addition to maximising CPU capacity, vectorised operation are often implemented in optimised, pre-compiled code written in low-level language (e.g: C). These languages are more performant than Python by nature, and they also avoid overheads such as data type checking etc.
Enough theory — here’s a simple vectorised operation in practice.
# Non-vectorised operation
def calc_result(row):
return row['col1'] +(row['col2'] * row['col3'])
df['result'] = df.apply(calc_result, axis=1)
>> 984 ms ± 16.3 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)# Vectorised operation
df['result'] = df['col1'] + (df['col2'] * df['col3'])
>> 227 µs ± 1.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)
Vectorised operation performed ~4350 times faster than non-vectorised operation. The code is intuitive and cleaner to read, too.
Other than executing mathematical operations for numbers, vectorised operations can perform non-compute operations, and for other data types too. Here’s a good reference of the possible string-type vectorised operations shared by Jake VanderPlas in his Python Data Science Handbook.
# Two examples of Vectorised Operation for String-type
df['result'] = df['String'].str.extract('([A-Za-z]+)', expand=False)
df['result'] = df['String'].str.split('T').str[0]# Two examples of Vectorised Operation for DateTime-type
df['result'] = df['Date'].dt.day_name()
df['result'] = df['Date'].dt.year
But, the very fact that vectorised operations loads and run everything simultaneously also means that it can only perform the same operation for every input value. If we want to divide a column by 2, it has to divide all the values in the column by 2, with no exceptions.
In other words, vectorised operations is one of the fastest way to iterate and has the cleanest syntax. They are great for applying simple and uniform operations across the entire sequence of data. But if we are trying to apply conditional logic (e.g; if-then), use Lambda functions or List Comprehension instead.
I hope this helps you see the benefits and limitations of each looping technique. The “best” looping technique will always depends on the type of logic you are implementing.
One final remark — this comparison is not exhaustive. Some small details are left out intentionally for simplicity reasons. The information here are generally correct, but you may run into slightly different performance for different use cases (e.g: vectorised operation are slower on strings). I recommend timing the loop yourself, and using line profiler if you really want to squeeze that optimisation juice.
Until then, good luck and godspeed.
Denial of responsibility! Techno Blender is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – [email protected]. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.