I wanted to compare different to build a string in Python from different variables:
+
to concatenate (referred to as \'plus\')%
string formatting is faster than the .format
method%
being a syntactical notation (hence fast execution), whereas .format
involves at least one extra method call__getattr__
I ran a slightly better analysis (on Python 3.8.2) using timeit
of various formatting methods, results of which are as follows (pretty-printed with BeautifulTable) -
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | Type \ num_vars | 1 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 250 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | f_str_str | 0.056 | 0.063 | 0.115 | 0.173 | 0.754 | 3.717 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | f_str_int | 0.055 | 0.148 | 0.354 | 0.656 | 3.186 | 15.747 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | concat_str | 0.012 | 0.044 | 0.169 | 0.333 | 1.888 | 10.231 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | pct_s_str | 0.091 | 0.114 | 0.182 | 0.313 | 1.213 | 6.019 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | pct_s_int | 0.09 | 0.141 | 0.248 | 0.479 | 2.179 | 10.768 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | dot_format_str | 0.143 | 0.157 | 0.251 | 0.461 | 1.745 | 8.259 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | dot_format_int | 0.141 | 0.192 | 0.333 | 0.62 | 2.735 | 13.298 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | dot_format2_str | 0.159 | 0.195 | 0.33 | 0.634 | 3.494 | 18.975 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ | dot_format2_int | 0.158 | 0.227 | 0.422 | 0.762 | 4.337 | 25.498 | +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+
The trailing _str
& _int
represent the operation was carried out on respective value types.
Kindly note that the concat_str
result for a single variable is essentially just the string itself, so it shouldn't really be considered.
My setup for arriving at the results -
from timeit import timeit
from beautifultable import BeautifulTable # pip install beautifultable
times = {}
for num_vars in (250, 50, 10, 5, 2, 1):
f_str = "f'{" + '}{'.join([f'x{i}' for i in range(num_vars)]) + "}'"
# "f'{x0}{x1}'"
concat = '+'.join([f'x{i}' for i in range(num_vars)])
# 'x0+x1'
pct_s = '"' + '%s'*num_vars + '" % (' + ','.join([f'x{i}' for i in range(num_vars)]) + ')'
# '"%s%s" % (x0,x1)'
dot_format = '"' + '{}'*num_vars + '".format(' + ','.join([f'x{i}' for i in range(num_vars)]) + ')'
# '"{}{}".format(x0,x1)'
dot_format2 = '"{' + '}{'.join([f'{i}' for i in range(num_vars)]) + '}".format(' + ','.join([f'x{i}' for i in range(num_vars)]) + ')'
# '"{0}{1}".format(x0,x1)'
vars = ','.join([f'x{i}' for i in range(num_vars)])
vals_str = tuple(map(str, range(num_vars))) if num_vars > 1 else '0'
setup_str = f'{vars} = {vals_str}'
# "x0,x1 = ('0', '1')"
vals_int = tuple(range(num_vars)) if num_vars > 1 else 0
setup_int = f'{vars} = {vals_int}'
# 'x0,x1 = (0, 1)'
times[num_vars] = {
'f_str_str': timeit(f_str, setup_str),
'f_str_int': timeit(f_str, setup_int),
'concat_str': timeit(concat, setup_str),
# 'concat_int': timeit(concat, setup_int), # this will be summation, not concat
'pct_s_str': timeit(pct_s, setup_str),
'pct_s_int': timeit(pct_s, setup_int),
'dot_format_str': timeit(dot_format, setup_str),
'dot_format_int': timeit(dot_format, setup_int),
'dot_format2_str': timeit(dot_format2, setup_str),
'dot_format2_int': timeit(dot_format2, setup_int),
}
table = BeautifulTable()
table.column_headers = ['Type \ num_vars'] + list(map(str, times.keys()))
# Order is preserved, so I didn't worry much
for key in ('f_str_str', 'f_str_int', 'concat_str', 'pct_s_str', 'pct_s_int', 'dot_format_str', 'dot_format_int', 'dot_format2_str', 'dot_format2_int'):
table.append_row([key] + [times[num_vars][key] for num_vars in (1, 2, 5, 10, 50, 250)])
print(table)
I couldn't go beyond num_vars=250
because of the max arguments (255) limit with timeit
.
tl;dr - Python string formatting performance : f-strings
are fastest and more elegant, but at times (due to some implementation restrictions & being Py3.6+ only), you might have to use other formatting options as necessary.