Apparently xrange is faster but I have no idea why it\'s faster (and no proof besides the anecdotal so far that it is faster) or what besides that is different about
When testing range against xrange in a loop (I know I should use timeit, but this was swiftly hacked up from memory using a simple list comprehension example) I found the following:
import time
for x in range(1, 10):
t = time.time()
[v*10 for v in range(1, 10000)]
print "range: %.4f" % ((time.time()-t)*100)
t = time.time()
[v*10 for v in xrange(1, 10000)]
print "xrange: %.4f" % ((time.time()-t)*100)
which gives:
$python range_tests.py
range: 0.4273
xrange: 0.3733
range: 0.3881
xrange: 0.3507
range: 0.3712
xrange: 0.3565
range: 0.4031
xrange: 0.3558
range: 0.3714
xrange: 0.3520
range: 0.3834
xrange: 0.3546
range: 0.3717
xrange: 0.3511
range: 0.3745
xrange: 0.3523
range: 0.3858
xrange: 0.3997 <- garbage collection?
Or, using xrange in the for loop:
range: 0.4172
xrange: 0.3701
range: 0.3840
xrange: 0.3547
range: 0.3830
xrange: 0.3862 <- garbage collection?
range: 0.4019
xrange: 0.3532
range: 0.3738
xrange: 0.3726
range: 0.3762
xrange: 0.3533
range: 0.3710
xrange: 0.3509
range: 0.3738
xrange: 0.3512
range: 0.3703
xrange: 0.3509
Is my snippet testing properly? Any comments on the slower instance of xrange? Or a better example :-)