Is there a reason to prefer using map()
over list comprehension or vice versa? Is either of them generally more efficient or considered generally more pythonic
So since Python 3, map() is an iterator, you need to keep in mind what do you need: an iterator or list
object.
As @AlexMartelli already mentioned, map()
is faster than list comprehension only if you don't use lambda
function.
I will present you some time comparisons.
Python 3.5.2 and CPython
I've used Jupiter notebook and especially %timeit built-in magic command
Measurements: s == 1000 ms == 1000 * 1000 µs = 1000 * 1000 * 1000 ns
Setup:
x_list = [(i, i+1, i+2, i*2, i-9) for i in range(1000)]
i_list = list(range(1000))
Built-in function:
%timeit map(sum, x_list) # creating iterator object
# Output: The slowest run took 9.91 times longer than the fastest.
# This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
# 1000000 loops, best of 3: 277 ns per loop
%timeit list(map(sum, x_list)) # creating list with map
# Output: 1000 loops, best of 3: 214 µs per loop
%timeit [sum(x) for x in x_list] # creating list with list comprehension
# Output: 1000 loops, best of 3: 290 µs per loop
lambda
function:
%timeit map(lambda i: i+1, i_list)
# Output: The slowest run took 8.64 times longer than the fastest.
# This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
# 1000000 loops, best of 3: 325 ns per loop
%timeit list(map(lambda i: i+1, i_list))
# Output: 1000 loops, best of 3: 183 µs per loop
%timeit [i+1 for i in i_list]
# Output: 10000 loops, best of 3: 84.2 µs per loop
There is also such thing as generator expression, see PEP-0289. So i thought it would be useful to add it to comparison
%timeit (sum(i) for i in x_list)
# Output: The slowest run took 6.66 times longer than the fastest.
# This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
# 1000000 loops, best of 3: 495 ns per loop
%timeit list((sum(x) for x in x_list))
# Output: 1000 loops, best of 3: 319 µs per loop
%timeit (i+1 for i in i_list)
# Output: The slowest run took 6.83 times longer than the fastest.
# This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
# 1000000 loops, best of 3: 506 ns per loop
%timeit list((i+1 for i in i_list))
# Output: 10000 loops, best of 3: 125 µs per loop
list
object:Use list comprehension if it's custom function, use list(map())
if there is builtin function
list
object, you just need iterable one:Always use map()
!