Why is [] faster than list()?












630















I recently compared the processing speeds of and list() and was surprised to discover that runs more than three times faster than list(). I ran the same test with {} and dict() and the results were practically identical: and {} both took around 0.128sec / million cycles, while list() and dict() took roughly 0.428sec / million cycles each.



Why is this? Do and {} (and probably () and '', too) immediately pass back a copies of some empty stock literal while their explicitly-named counterparts (list(), dict(), tuple(), str()) fully go about creating an object, whether or not they actually have elements?



I have no idea how these two methods differ but I'd love to find out.
I couldn't find an answer in the docs or on SO, and searching for empty brackets turned out to be more problematic than I'd expected.



I got my timing results by calling timeit.timeit("") and timeit.timeit("list()"), and timeit.timeit("{}") and timeit.timeit("dict()"), to compare lists and dictionaries, respectively. I'm running Python 2.7.9.



I recently discovered "Why is if True slower than if 1?" that compares the performance of if True to if 1 and seems to touch on a similar literal-versus-global scenario; perhaps it's worth considering as well.










share|improve this question

























  • Note: () and '' are special, as they're not only empty, they're immutable, and as such, it's an easy win to make them singletons; they don't even construct new objects, just load the singleton for the empty tuple/str. Technically an implementation detail, but I have a hard time imagining why they wouldn't cache the empty tuple/str for performance reasons. So your intuition about and {} passing back a stock literal was wrong, but it does apply to () and ''.

    – ShadowRanger
    Nov 9 '18 at 4:07













  • Also related: Why is {} faster than calling set()?

    – coldspeed
    Jan 26 at 0:45


















630















I recently compared the processing speeds of and list() and was surprised to discover that runs more than three times faster than list(). I ran the same test with {} and dict() and the results were practically identical: and {} both took around 0.128sec / million cycles, while list() and dict() took roughly 0.428sec / million cycles each.



Why is this? Do and {} (and probably () and '', too) immediately pass back a copies of some empty stock literal while their explicitly-named counterparts (list(), dict(), tuple(), str()) fully go about creating an object, whether or not they actually have elements?



I have no idea how these two methods differ but I'd love to find out.
I couldn't find an answer in the docs or on SO, and searching for empty brackets turned out to be more problematic than I'd expected.



I got my timing results by calling timeit.timeit("") and timeit.timeit("list()"), and timeit.timeit("{}") and timeit.timeit("dict()"), to compare lists and dictionaries, respectively. I'm running Python 2.7.9.



I recently discovered "Why is if True slower than if 1?" that compares the performance of if True to if 1 and seems to touch on a similar literal-versus-global scenario; perhaps it's worth considering as well.










share|improve this question

























  • Note: () and '' are special, as they're not only empty, they're immutable, and as such, it's an easy win to make them singletons; they don't even construct new objects, just load the singleton for the empty tuple/str. Technically an implementation detail, but I have a hard time imagining why they wouldn't cache the empty tuple/str for performance reasons. So your intuition about and {} passing back a stock literal was wrong, but it does apply to () and ''.

    – ShadowRanger
    Nov 9 '18 at 4:07













  • Also related: Why is {} faster than calling set()?

    – coldspeed
    Jan 26 at 0:45
















630












630








630


185






I recently compared the processing speeds of and list() and was surprised to discover that runs more than three times faster than list(). I ran the same test with {} and dict() and the results were practically identical: and {} both took around 0.128sec / million cycles, while list() and dict() took roughly 0.428sec / million cycles each.



Why is this? Do and {} (and probably () and '', too) immediately pass back a copies of some empty stock literal while their explicitly-named counterparts (list(), dict(), tuple(), str()) fully go about creating an object, whether or not they actually have elements?



I have no idea how these two methods differ but I'd love to find out.
I couldn't find an answer in the docs or on SO, and searching for empty brackets turned out to be more problematic than I'd expected.



I got my timing results by calling timeit.timeit("") and timeit.timeit("list()"), and timeit.timeit("{}") and timeit.timeit("dict()"), to compare lists and dictionaries, respectively. I'm running Python 2.7.9.



I recently discovered "Why is if True slower than if 1?" that compares the performance of if True to if 1 and seems to touch on a similar literal-versus-global scenario; perhaps it's worth considering as well.










share|improve this question
















I recently compared the processing speeds of and list() and was surprised to discover that runs more than three times faster than list(). I ran the same test with {} and dict() and the results were practically identical: and {} both took around 0.128sec / million cycles, while list() and dict() took roughly 0.428sec / million cycles each.



Why is this? Do and {} (and probably () and '', too) immediately pass back a copies of some empty stock literal while their explicitly-named counterparts (list(), dict(), tuple(), str()) fully go about creating an object, whether or not they actually have elements?



I have no idea how these two methods differ but I'd love to find out.
I couldn't find an answer in the docs or on SO, and searching for empty brackets turned out to be more problematic than I'd expected.



I got my timing results by calling timeit.timeit("") and timeit.timeit("list()"), and timeit.timeit("{}") and timeit.timeit("dict()"), to compare lists and dictionaries, respectively. I'm running Python 2.7.9.



I recently discovered "Why is if True slower than if 1?" that compares the performance of if True to if 1 and seems to touch on a similar literal-versus-global scenario; perhaps it's worth considering as well.







python performance list instantiation literals






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 23 '17 at 11:47









Community

11




11










asked May 13 '15 at 13:16









AugustaAugusta

3,44241537




3,44241537













  • Note: () and '' are special, as they're not only empty, they're immutable, and as such, it's an easy win to make them singletons; they don't even construct new objects, just load the singleton for the empty tuple/str. Technically an implementation detail, but I have a hard time imagining why they wouldn't cache the empty tuple/str for performance reasons. So your intuition about and {} passing back a stock literal was wrong, but it does apply to () and ''.

    – ShadowRanger
    Nov 9 '18 at 4:07













  • Also related: Why is {} faster than calling set()?

    – coldspeed
    Jan 26 at 0:45





















  • Note: () and '' are special, as they're not only empty, they're immutable, and as such, it's an easy win to make them singletons; they don't even construct new objects, just load the singleton for the empty tuple/str. Technically an implementation detail, but I have a hard time imagining why they wouldn't cache the empty tuple/str for performance reasons. So your intuition about and {} passing back a stock literal was wrong, but it does apply to () and ''.

    – ShadowRanger
    Nov 9 '18 at 4:07













  • Also related: Why is {} faster than calling set()?

    – coldspeed
    Jan 26 at 0:45



















Note: () and '' are special, as they're not only empty, they're immutable, and as such, it's an easy win to make them singletons; they don't even construct new objects, just load the singleton for the empty tuple/str. Technically an implementation detail, but I have a hard time imagining why they wouldn't cache the empty tuple/str for performance reasons. So your intuition about and {} passing back a stock literal was wrong, but it does apply to () and ''.

– ShadowRanger
Nov 9 '18 at 4:07







Note: () and '' are special, as they're not only empty, they're immutable, and as such, it's an easy win to make them singletons; they don't even construct new objects, just load the singleton for the empty tuple/str. Technically an implementation detail, but I have a hard time imagining why they wouldn't cache the empty tuple/str for performance reasons. So your intuition about and {} passing back a stock literal was wrong, but it does apply to () and ''.

– ShadowRanger
Nov 9 '18 at 4:07















Also related: Why is {} faster than calling set()?

– coldspeed
Jan 26 at 0:45







Also related: Why is {} faster than calling set()?

– coldspeed
Jan 26 at 0:45














5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















687














Because and {} are literal syntax. Python can create bytecode just to create the list or dictionary objects:



>>> import dis
>>> dis.dis(compile('', '', 'eval'))
1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
3 RETURN_VALUE
>>> dis.dis(compile('{}', '', 'eval'))
1 0 BUILD_MAP 0
3 RETURN_VALUE


list() and dict() are separate objects. Their names need to be resolved, the stack has to be involved to push the arguments, the frame has to be stored to retrieve later, and a call has to be made. That all takes more time.



For the empty case, that means you have at the very least a LOAD_NAME (which has to search through the global namespace as well as the __builtin__ module) followed by a CALL_FUNCTION, which has to preserve the current frame:



>>> dis.dis(compile('list()', '', 'eval'))
1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
6 RETURN_VALUE
>>> dis.dis(compile('dict()', '', 'eval'))
1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (dict)
3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
6 RETURN_VALUE


You can time the name lookup separately with timeit:



>>> import timeit
>>> timeit.timeit('list', number=10**7)
0.30749011039733887
>>> timeit.timeit('dict', number=10**7)
0.4215109348297119


The time discrepancy there is probably a dictionary hash collision. Subtract those times from the times for calling those objects, and compare the result against the times for using literals:



>>> timeit.timeit('', number=10**7)
0.30478692054748535
>>> timeit.timeit('{}', number=10**7)
0.31482696533203125
>>> timeit.timeit('list()', number=10**7)
0.9991960525512695
>>> timeit.timeit('dict()', number=10**7)
1.0200958251953125


So having to call the object takes an additional 1.00 - 0.31 - 0.30 == 0.39 seconds per 10 million calls.



You can avoid the global lookup cost by aliasing the global names as locals (using a timeit setup, everything you bind to a name is a local):



>>> timeit.timeit('_list', '_list = list', number=10**7)
0.1866450309753418
>>> timeit.timeit('_dict', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
0.19016098976135254
>>> timeit.timeit('_list()', '_list = list', number=10**7)
0.841480016708374
>>> timeit.timeit('_dict()', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
0.7233691215515137


but you never can overcome that CALL_FUNCTION cost.






share|improve this answer

































    136














    list() requires a global lookup and a function call but compiles to a single instruction. See:



    Python 2.7.3
    >>> import dis
    >>> print dis.dis(lambda: list())
    1 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (list)
    3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
    6 RETURN_VALUE
    None
    >>> print dis.dis(lambda: )
    1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
    3 RETURN_VALUE
    None





    share|improve this answer

































      72














      Because list is a function to convert say a string to a list object, while is used to create a list off the bat. Try this (might make more sense to you):



      x = "wham bam"
      a = list(x)
      >>> a
      ["w", "h", "a", "m", ...]


      While



      y = ["wham bam"]
      >>> y
      ["wham bam"]


      Gives you a actual list containing whatever you put in it.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 6





        This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

        – Jeremy Visser
        Jun 6 '15 at 0:21






      • 1





        @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

        – Torxed
        Jun 6 '15 at 7:53











      • @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

        – Baldrickk
        Jul 5 '18 at 12:30



















      15














      The answers here are great, to the point and fully cover this question. I'll drop a further step down from byte-code for those interested. I'm using the most recent repo of CPython; older versions behave similar in this regard but slight changes might be in place.



      Here's a break down of the execution for each of these, BUILD_LIST for and CALL_FUNCTION for list().





      The BUILD_LIST instruction:



      You should just view the horror:



      PyObject *list =  PyList_New(oparg);
      if (list == NULL)
      goto error;
      while (--oparg >= 0) {
      PyObject *item = POP();
      PyList_SET_ITEM(list, oparg, item);
      }
      PUSH(list);
      DISPATCH();


      Terribly convoluted, I know. This is how simple it is:




      • Create a new list with PyList_New (this mainly allocates the memory for a new list object), oparg signalling the number of arguments on the stack. Straight to the point.

      • Check that nothing went wrong with if (list==NULL).

      • Add any arguments (in our case this isn't executed) located on the stack with PyList_SET_ITEM (a macro).


      No wonder it is fast! It's custom-made for creating new lists, nothing else :-)



      The CALL_FUNCTION instruction:



      Here's the first thing you see when you peek at the code handling CALL_FUNCTION:



      PyObject **sp, *res;
      sp = stack_pointer;
      res = call_function(&sp, oparg, NULL);
      stack_pointer = sp;
      PUSH(res);
      if (res == NULL) {
      goto error;
      }
      DISPATCH();


      Looks pretty harmless, right? Well, no, unfortunately not, call_function is not a straightforward guy that will call the function immediately, it can't. Instead, it grabs the object from the stack, grabs all arguments of the stack and then switches based on the type of the object; is it a:





      • PyCFunction_Type? Nope, it is list, list isn't of type PyCFunction


      • PyMethodType? Nope, see previous.


      • PyFunctionType? Nopee, see previous.


      We're calling the list type, the argument passed in to call_function is PyList_Type. CPython now has to call a generic function to handle any callable objects named _PyObject_FastCallKeywords, yay more function calls.



      This function again makes some checks for certain function types (which I cannot understand why) and then, after creating a dict for kwargs if required, goes on to call _PyObject_FastCallDict.



      _PyObject_FastCallDict finally gets us somewhere! After performing even more checks it grabs the tp_call slot from the type of the type we've passed in, that is, it grabs type.tp_call. It then proceeds to create a tuple out of of the arguments passed in with _PyStack_AsTuple and, finally, a call can finally be made!



      tp_call, which matches type.__call__ takes over and finally creates the list object. It calls the lists __new__ which corresponds to PyType_GenericNew and allocates memory for it with PyType_GenericAlloc: This is actually the part where it catches up with PyList_New, finally. All the previous are necessary to handle objects in a generic fashion.



      In the end, type_call calls list.__init__ and initializes the list with any available arguments, then we go on a returning back the way we came. :-)



      Finally, remmeber the LOAD_NAME, that's another guy that contributes here.





      It's easy to see that, when dealing with our input, Python generally has to jump through hoops in order to actually find out the appropriate C function to do the job. It doesn't have the curtesy of immediately calling it because it's dynamic, someone might mask list (and boy do many people do) and another path must be taken.



      This is where list() loses much: The exploring Python needs to do to find out what the heck it should do.



      Literal syntax, on the other hand, means exactly one thing; it cannot be changed and always behaves in a pre-determined way.



      Footnote: All function names are subject to change from one release to the other. The point still stands and most likely will stand in any future versions, it's the dynamic look-up that slows things down.






      share|improve this answer

































        8















        Why is faster than list()?




        The biggest reason is that Python treats list() just like a user-defined function, which means you can intercept it by aliasing something else to list and do something different (like use your own subclassed list or perhaps a deque).



        It immediately creates a new instance of a builtin list with .



        My explanation seeks to give you the intuition for this.



        Explanation



        is commonly known as literal syntax.



        In the grammar, this is referred to as a "list display". From the docs:




        A list display is a possibly empty series of expressions enclosed in
        square brackets:



        list_display ::=  "[" [starred_list | comprehension] "]"


        A list display yields a new list object, the contents being specified
        by either a list of expressions or a comprehension. When a
        comma-separated list of expressions is supplied, its elements are
        evaluated from left to right and placed into the list object in that
        order. When a comprehension is supplied, the list is constructed from
        the elements resulting from the comprehension.




        In short, this means that a builtin object of type list is created.



        There is no circumventing this - which means Python can do it as quickly as it may.



        On the other hand, list() can be intercepted from creating a builtin list using the builtin list constructor.



        For example, say we want our lists to be created noisily:



        class List(list):
        def __init__(self, iterable=None):
        if iterable is None:
        super().__init__()
        else:
        super().__init__(iterable)
        print('List initialized.')


        We could then intercept the name list on the module level global scope, and then when we create a list, we actually create our subtyped list:



        >>> list = List
        >>> a_list = list()
        List initialized.
        >>> type(a_list)
        <class '__main__.List'>


        Similarly we could remove it from the global namespace



        del list


        and put it in the builtin namespace:



        import builtins
        builtins.list = List


        And now:



        >>> list_0 = list()
        List initialized.
        >>> type(list_0)
        <class '__main__.List'>


        And note that the list display creates a list unconditionally:



        >>> list_1 = 
        >>> type(list_1)
        <class 'list'>


        We probably only do this temporarily, so lets undo our changes - first remove the new List object from the builtins:



        >>> del builtins.list
        >>> builtins.list
        Traceback (most recent call last):
        File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
        AttributeError: module 'builtins' has no attribute 'list'
        >>> list()
        Traceback (most recent call last):
        File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
        NameError: name 'list' is not defined


        Oh, no, we lost track of the original.



        Not to worry, we can still get list - it's the type of a list literal:



        >>> builtins.list = type()
        >>> list()



        So...




        Why is faster than list()?




        As we've seen - we can overwrite list - but we can't intercept the creation of the literal type. When we use list we have to do the lookups to see if anything is there.



        Then we have to call whatever callable we have looked up. From the grammar:




        A call calls a callable object (e.g., a function) with a possibly
        empty series of arguments:



        call                 ::=  primary "(" [argument_list [","] | comprehension] ")"



        We can see that it does the same thing for any name, not just list:



        >>> import dis
        >>> dis.dis('list()')
        1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
        2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
        4 RETURN_VALUE
        >>> dis.dis('doesnotexist()')
        1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (doesnotexist)
        2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
        4 RETURN_VALUE


        For there is no function call at the Python bytecode level:



        >>> dis.dis('')
        1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
        2 RETURN_VALUE


        It simply goes straight to building the list without any lookups or calls at the bytecode level.



        Conclusion



        We have demonstrated that list can be intercepted with user code using the scoping rules, and that list() looks for a callable and then calls it.



        Whereas is a list display, or a literal, and thus avoids the name lookup and function call.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 2





          +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

          – Beefster
          Dec 15 '17 at 21:57










        protected by Rizier123 May 20 '15 at 14:22



        Thank you for your interest in this question.
        Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



        Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        687














        Because and {} are literal syntax. Python can create bytecode just to create the list or dictionary objects:



        >>> import dis
        >>> dis.dis(compile('', '', 'eval'))
        1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
        3 RETURN_VALUE
        >>> dis.dis(compile('{}', '', 'eval'))
        1 0 BUILD_MAP 0
        3 RETURN_VALUE


        list() and dict() are separate objects. Their names need to be resolved, the stack has to be involved to push the arguments, the frame has to be stored to retrieve later, and a call has to be made. That all takes more time.



        For the empty case, that means you have at the very least a LOAD_NAME (which has to search through the global namespace as well as the __builtin__ module) followed by a CALL_FUNCTION, which has to preserve the current frame:



        >>> dis.dis(compile('list()', '', 'eval'))
        1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
        3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
        6 RETURN_VALUE
        >>> dis.dis(compile('dict()', '', 'eval'))
        1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (dict)
        3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
        6 RETURN_VALUE


        You can time the name lookup separately with timeit:



        >>> import timeit
        >>> timeit.timeit('list', number=10**7)
        0.30749011039733887
        >>> timeit.timeit('dict', number=10**7)
        0.4215109348297119


        The time discrepancy there is probably a dictionary hash collision. Subtract those times from the times for calling those objects, and compare the result against the times for using literals:



        >>> timeit.timeit('', number=10**7)
        0.30478692054748535
        >>> timeit.timeit('{}', number=10**7)
        0.31482696533203125
        >>> timeit.timeit('list()', number=10**7)
        0.9991960525512695
        >>> timeit.timeit('dict()', number=10**7)
        1.0200958251953125


        So having to call the object takes an additional 1.00 - 0.31 - 0.30 == 0.39 seconds per 10 million calls.



        You can avoid the global lookup cost by aliasing the global names as locals (using a timeit setup, everything you bind to a name is a local):



        >>> timeit.timeit('_list', '_list = list', number=10**7)
        0.1866450309753418
        >>> timeit.timeit('_dict', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
        0.19016098976135254
        >>> timeit.timeit('_list()', '_list = list', number=10**7)
        0.841480016708374
        >>> timeit.timeit('_dict()', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
        0.7233691215515137


        but you never can overcome that CALL_FUNCTION cost.






        share|improve this answer






























          687














          Because and {} are literal syntax. Python can create bytecode just to create the list or dictionary objects:



          >>> import dis
          >>> dis.dis(compile('', '', 'eval'))
          1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
          3 RETURN_VALUE
          >>> dis.dis(compile('{}', '', 'eval'))
          1 0 BUILD_MAP 0
          3 RETURN_VALUE


          list() and dict() are separate objects. Their names need to be resolved, the stack has to be involved to push the arguments, the frame has to be stored to retrieve later, and a call has to be made. That all takes more time.



          For the empty case, that means you have at the very least a LOAD_NAME (which has to search through the global namespace as well as the __builtin__ module) followed by a CALL_FUNCTION, which has to preserve the current frame:



          >>> dis.dis(compile('list()', '', 'eval'))
          1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
          3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
          6 RETURN_VALUE
          >>> dis.dis(compile('dict()', '', 'eval'))
          1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (dict)
          3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
          6 RETURN_VALUE


          You can time the name lookup separately with timeit:



          >>> import timeit
          >>> timeit.timeit('list', number=10**7)
          0.30749011039733887
          >>> timeit.timeit('dict', number=10**7)
          0.4215109348297119


          The time discrepancy there is probably a dictionary hash collision. Subtract those times from the times for calling those objects, and compare the result against the times for using literals:



          >>> timeit.timeit('', number=10**7)
          0.30478692054748535
          >>> timeit.timeit('{}', number=10**7)
          0.31482696533203125
          >>> timeit.timeit('list()', number=10**7)
          0.9991960525512695
          >>> timeit.timeit('dict()', number=10**7)
          1.0200958251953125


          So having to call the object takes an additional 1.00 - 0.31 - 0.30 == 0.39 seconds per 10 million calls.



          You can avoid the global lookup cost by aliasing the global names as locals (using a timeit setup, everything you bind to a name is a local):



          >>> timeit.timeit('_list', '_list = list', number=10**7)
          0.1866450309753418
          >>> timeit.timeit('_dict', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
          0.19016098976135254
          >>> timeit.timeit('_list()', '_list = list', number=10**7)
          0.841480016708374
          >>> timeit.timeit('_dict()', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
          0.7233691215515137


          but you never can overcome that CALL_FUNCTION cost.






          share|improve this answer




























            687












            687








            687







            Because and {} are literal syntax. Python can create bytecode just to create the list or dictionary objects:



            >>> import dis
            >>> dis.dis(compile('', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
            3 RETURN_VALUE
            >>> dis.dis(compile('{}', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 BUILD_MAP 0
            3 RETURN_VALUE


            list() and dict() are separate objects. Their names need to be resolved, the stack has to be involved to push the arguments, the frame has to be stored to retrieve later, and a call has to be made. That all takes more time.



            For the empty case, that means you have at the very least a LOAD_NAME (which has to search through the global namespace as well as the __builtin__ module) followed by a CALL_FUNCTION, which has to preserve the current frame:



            >>> dis.dis(compile('list()', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
            3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
            6 RETURN_VALUE
            >>> dis.dis(compile('dict()', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (dict)
            3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
            6 RETURN_VALUE


            You can time the name lookup separately with timeit:



            >>> import timeit
            >>> timeit.timeit('list', number=10**7)
            0.30749011039733887
            >>> timeit.timeit('dict', number=10**7)
            0.4215109348297119


            The time discrepancy there is probably a dictionary hash collision. Subtract those times from the times for calling those objects, and compare the result against the times for using literals:



            >>> timeit.timeit('', number=10**7)
            0.30478692054748535
            >>> timeit.timeit('{}', number=10**7)
            0.31482696533203125
            >>> timeit.timeit('list()', number=10**7)
            0.9991960525512695
            >>> timeit.timeit('dict()', number=10**7)
            1.0200958251953125


            So having to call the object takes an additional 1.00 - 0.31 - 0.30 == 0.39 seconds per 10 million calls.



            You can avoid the global lookup cost by aliasing the global names as locals (using a timeit setup, everything you bind to a name is a local):



            >>> timeit.timeit('_list', '_list = list', number=10**7)
            0.1866450309753418
            >>> timeit.timeit('_dict', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
            0.19016098976135254
            >>> timeit.timeit('_list()', '_list = list', number=10**7)
            0.841480016708374
            >>> timeit.timeit('_dict()', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
            0.7233691215515137


            but you never can overcome that CALL_FUNCTION cost.






            share|improve this answer















            Because and {} are literal syntax. Python can create bytecode just to create the list or dictionary objects:



            >>> import dis
            >>> dis.dis(compile('', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
            3 RETURN_VALUE
            >>> dis.dis(compile('{}', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 BUILD_MAP 0
            3 RETURN_VALUE


            list() and dict() are separate objects. Their names need to be resolved, the stack has to be involved to push the arguments, the frame has to be stored to retrieve later, and a call has to be made. That all takes more time.



            For the empty case, that means you have at the very least a LOAD_NAME (which has to search through the global namespace as well as the __builtin__ module) followed by a CALL_FUNCTION, which has to preserve the current frame:



            >>> dis.dis(compile('list()', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
            3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
            6 RETURN_VALUE
            >>> dis.dis(compile('dict()', '', 'eval'))
            1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (dict)
            3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
            6 RETURN_VALUE


            You can time the name lookup separately with timeit:



            >>> import timeit
            >>> timeit.timeit('list', number=10**7)
            0.30749011039733887
            >>> timeit.timeit('dict', number=10**7)
            0.4215109348297119


            The time discrepancy there is probably a dictionary hash collision. Subtract those times from the times for calling those objects, and compare the result against the times for using literals:



            >>> timeit.timeit('', number=10**7)
            0.30478692054748535
            >>> timeit.timeit('{}', number=10**7)
            0.31482696533203125
            >>> timeit.timeit('list()', number=10**7)
            0.9991960525512695
            >>> timeit.timeit('dict()', number=10**7)
            1.0200958251953125


            So having to call the object takes an additional 1.00 - 0.31 - 0.30 == 0.39 seconds per 10 million calls.



            You can avoid the global lookup cost by aliasing the global names as locals (using a timeit setup, everything you bind to a name is a local):



            >>> timeit.timeit('_list', '_list = list', number=10**7)
            0.1866450309753418
            >>> timeit.timeit('_dict', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
            0.19016098976135254
            >>> timeit.timeit('_list()', '_list = list', number=10**7)
            0.841480016708374
            >>> timeit.timeit('_dict()', '_dict = dict', number=10**7)
            0.7233691215515137


            but you never can overcome that CALL_FUNCTION cost.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited May 13 '15 at 13:40

























            answered May 13 '15 at 13:21









            Martijn PietersMartijn Pieters

            715k13825002311




            715k13825002311

























                136














                list() requires a global lookup and a function call but compiles to a single instruction. See:



                Python 2.7.3
                >>> import dis
                >>> print dis.dis(lambda: list())
                1 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (list)
                3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                6 RETURN_VALUE
                None
                >>> print dis.dis(lambda: )
                1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                3 RETURN_VALUE
                None





                share|improve this answer






























                  136














                  list() requires a global lookup and a function call but compiles to a single instruction. See:



                  Python 2.7.3
                  >>> import dis
                  >>> print dis.dis(lambda: list())
                  1 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (list)
                  3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                  6 RETURN_VALUE
                  None
                  >>> print dis.dis(lambda: )
                  1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                  3 RETURN_VALUE
                  None





                  share|improve this answer




























                    136












                    136








                    136







                    list() requires a global lookup and a function call but compiles to a single instruction. See:



                    Python 2.7.3
                    >>> import dis
                    >>> print dis.dis(lambda: list())
                    1 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (list)
                    3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                    6 RETURN_VALUE
                    None
                    >>> print dis.dis(lambda: )
                    1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                    3 RETURN_VALUE
                    None





                    share|improve this answer















                    list() requires a global lookup and a function call but compiles to a single instruction. See:



                    Python 2.7.3
                    >>> import dis
                    >>> print dis.dis(lambda: list())
                    1 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (list)
                    3 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                    6 RETURN_VALUE
                    None
                    >>> print dis.dis(lambda: )
                    1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                    3 RETURN_VALUE
                    None






                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited May 13 '15 at 19:22









                    rightfold

                    23.9k67192




                    23.9k67192










                    answered May 13 '15 at 13:22









                    Dan D.Dan D.

                    53.9k1079101




                    53.9k1079101























                        72














                        Because list is a function to convert say a string to a list object, while is used to create a list off the bat. Try this (might make more sense to you):



                        x = "wham bam"
                        a = list(x)
                        >>> a
                        ["w", "h", "a", "m", ...]


                        While



                        y = ["wham bam"]
                        >>> y
                        ["wham bam"]


                        Gives you a actual list containing whatever you put in it.






                        share|improve this answer





















                        • 6





                          This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

                          – Jeremy Visser
                          Jun 6 '15 at 0:21






                        • 1





                          @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

                          – Torxed
                          Jun 6 '15 at 7:53











                        • @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

                          – Baldrickk
                          Jul 5 '18 at 12:30
















                        72














                        Because list is a function to convert say a string to a list object, while is used to create a list off the bat. Try this (might make more sense to you):



                        x = "wham bam"
                        a = list(x)
                        >>> a
                        ["w", "h", "a", "m", ...]


                        While



                        y = ["wham bam"]
                        >>> y
                        ["wham bam"]


                        Gives you a actual list containing whatever you put in it.






                        share|improve this answer





















                        • 6





                          This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

                          – Jeremy Visser
                          Jun 6 '15 at 0:21






                        • 1





                          @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

                          – Torxed
                          Jun 6 '15 at 7:53











                        • @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

                          – Baldrickk
                          Jul 5 '18 at 12:30














                        72












                        72








                        72







                        Because list is a function to convert say a string to a list object, while is used to create a list off the bat. Try this (might make more sense to you):



                        x = "wham bam"
                        a = list(x)
                        >>> a
                        ["w", "h", "a", "m", ...]


                        While



                        y = ["wham bam"]
                        >>> y
                        ["wham bam"]


                        Gives you a actual list containing whatever you put in it.






                        share|improve this answer















                        Because list is a function to convert say a string to a list object, while is used to create a list off the bat. Try this (might make more sense to you):



                        x = "wham bam"
                        a = list(x)
                        >>> a
                        ["w", "h", "a", "m", ...]


                        While



                        y = ["wham bam"]
                        >>> y
                        ["wham bam"]


                        Gives you a actual list containing whatever you put in it.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited May 13 '15 at 13:27

























                        answered May 13 '15 at 13:21









                        TorxedTorxed

                        13.7k105689




                        13.7k105689








                        • 6





                          This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

                          – Jeremy Visser
                          Jun 6 '15 at 0:21






                        • 1





                          @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

                          – Torxed
                          Jun 6 '15 at 7:53











                        • @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

                          – Baldrickk
                          Jul 5 '18 at 12:30














                        • 6





                          This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

                          – Jeremy Visser
                          Jun 6 '15 at 0:21






                        • 1





                          @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

                          – Torxed
                          Jun 6 '15 at 7:53











                        • @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

                          – Baldrickk
                          Jul 5 '18 at 12:30








                        6




                        6





                        This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

                        – Jeremy Visser
                        Jun 6 '15 at 0:21





                        This does not directly address the question. The question was about why is faster than list(), not why ['wham bam'] is faster than list('wham bam').

                        – Jeremy Visser
                        Jun 6 '15 at 0:21




                        1




                        1





                        @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

                        – Torxed
                        Jun 6 '15 at 7:53





                        @JeremyVisser That made little sense to me because /list() is exactly the same as ['wham']/list('wham') because they have the same variable differences just as 1000/10 is the same as 100/1 in math. You could in theory take away wham bam and the fact would still be the same, that list() tries to convert something by calling a function name while will straight up just convert the variable. Function calls are different yes, this is just a logical overview of the issue as for instance a network map of a company is also logical of a solution/problem. Vote however you want.

                        – Torxed
                        Jun 6 '15 at 7:53













                        @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

                        – Baldrickk
                        Jul 5 '18 at 12:30





                        @JeremyVisser on the contrary, it shows that they do different operations on the content.

                        – Baldrickk
                        Jul 5 '18 at 12:30











                        15














                        The answers here are great, to the point and fully cover this question. I'll drop a further step down from byte-code for those interested. I'm using the most recent repo of CPython; older versions behave similar in this regard but slight changes might be in place.



                        Here's a break down of the execution for each of these, BUILD_LIST for and CALL_FUNCTION for list().





                        The BUILD_LIST instruction:



                        You should just view the horror:



                        PyObject *list =  PyList_New(oparg);
                        if (list == NULL)
                        goto error;
                        while (--oparg >= 0) {
                        PyObject *item = POP();
                        PyList_SET_ITEM(list, oparg, item);
                        }
                        PUSH(list);
                        DISPATCH();


                        Terribly convoluted, I know. This is how simple it is:




                        • Create a new list with PyList_New (this mainly allocates the memory for a new list object), oparg signalling the number of arguments on the stack. Straight to the point.

                        • Check that nothing went wrong with if (list==NULL).

                        • Add any arguments (in our case this isn't executed) located on the stack with PyList_SET_ITEM (a macro).


                        No wonder it is fast! It's custom-made for creating new lists, nothing else :-)



                        The CALL_FUNCTION instruction:



                        Here's the first thing you see when you peek at the code handling CALL_FUNCTION:



                        PyObject **sp, *res;
                        sp = stack_pointer;
                        res = call_function(&sp, oparg, NULL);
                        stack_pointer = sp;
                        PUSH(res);
                        if (res == NULL) {
                        goto error;
                        }
                        DISPATCH();


                        Looks pretty harmless, right? Well, no, unfortunately not, call_function is not a straightforward guy that will call the function immediately, it can't. Instead, it grabs the object from the stack, grabs all arguments of the stack and then switches based on the type of the object; is it a:





                        • PyCFunction_Type? Nope, it is list, list isn't of type PyCFunction


                        • PyMethodType? Nope, see previous.


                        • PyFunctionType? Nopee, see previous.


                        We're calling the list type, the argument passed in to call_function is PyList_Type. CPython now has to call a generic function to handle any callable objects named _PyObject_FastCallKeywords, yay more function calls.



                        This function again makes some checks for certain function types (which I cannot understand why) and then, after creating a dict for kwargs if required, goes on to call _PyObject_FastCallDict.



                        _PyObject_FastCallDict finally gets us somewhere! After performing even more checks it grabs the tp_call slot from the type of the type we've passed in, that is, it grabs type.tp_call. It then proceeds to create a tuple out of of the arguments passed in with _PyStack_AsTuple and, finally, a call can finally be made!



                        tp_call, which matches type.__call__ takes over and finally creates the list object. It calls the lists __new__ which corresponds to PyType_GenericNew and allocates memory for it with PyType_GenericAlloc: This is actually the part where it catches up with PyList_New, finally. All the previous are necessary to handle objects in a generic fashion.



                        In the end, type_call calls list.__init__ and initializes the list with any available arguments, then we go on a returning back the way we came. :-)



                        Finally, remmeber the LOAD_NAME, that's another guy that contributes here.





                        It's easy to see that, when dealing with our input, Python generally has to jump through hoops in order to actually find out the appropriate C function to do the job. It doesn't have the curtesy of immediately calling it because it's dynamic, someone might mask list (and boy do many people do) and another path must be taken.



                        This is where list() loses much: The exploring Python needs to do to find out what the heck it should do.



                        Literal syntax, on the other hand, means exactly one thing; it cannot be changed and always behaves in a pre-determined way.



                        Footnote: All function names are subject to change from one release to the other. The point still stands and most likely will stand in any future versions, it's the dynamic look-up that slows things down.






                        share|improve this answer






























                          15














                          The answers here are great, to the point and fully cover this question. I'll drop a further step down from byte-code for those interested. I'm using the most recent repo of CPython; older versions behave similar in this regard but slight changes might be in place.



                          Here's a break down of the execution for each of these, BUILD_LIST for and CALL_FUNCTION for list().





                          The BUILD_LIST instruction:



                          You should just view the horror:



                          PyObject *list =  PyList_New(oparg);
                          if (list == NULL)
                          goto error;
                          while (--oparg >= 0) {
                          PyObject *item = POP();
                          PyList_SET_ITEM(list, oparg, item);
                          }
                          PUSH(list);
                          DISPATCH();


                          Terribly convoluted, I know. This is how simple it is:




                          • Create a new list with PyList_New (this mainly allocates the memory for a new list object), oparg signalling the number of arguments on the stack. Straight to the point.

                          • Check that nothing went wrong with if (list==NULL).

                          • Add any arguments (in our case this isn't executed) located on the stack with PyList_SET_ITEM (a macro).


                          No wonder it is fast! It's custom-made for creating new lists, nothing else :-)



                          The CALL_FUNCTION instruction:



                          Here's the first thing you see when you peek at the code handling CALL_FUNCTION:



                          PyObject **sp, *res;
                          sp = stack_pointer;
                          res = call_function(&sp, oparg, NULL);
                          stack_pointer = sp;
                          PUSH(res);
                          if (res == NULL) {
                          goto error;
                          }
                          DISPATCH();


                          Looks pretty harmless, right? Well, no, unfortunately not, call_function is not a straightforward guy that will call the function immediately, it can't. Instead, it grabs the object from the stack, grabs all arguments of the stack and then switches based on the type of the object; is it a:





                          • PyCFunction_Type? Nope, it is list, list isn't of type PyCFunction


                          • PyMethodType? Nope, see previous.


                          • PyFunctionType? Nopee, see previous.


                          We're calling the list type, the argument passed in to call_function is PyList_Type. CPython now has to call a generic function to handle any callable objects named _PyObject_FastCallKeywords, yay more function calls.



                          This function again makes some checks for certain function types (which I cannot understand why) and then, after creating a dict for kwargs if required, goes on to call _PyObject_FastCallDict.



                          _PyObject_FastCallDict finally gets us somewhere! After performing even more checks it grabs the tp_call slot from the type of the type we've passed in, that is, it grabs type.tp_call. It then proceeds to create a tuple out of of the arguments passed in with _PyStack_AsTuple and, finally, a call can finally be made!



                          tp_call, which matches type.__call__ takes over and finally creates the list object. It calls the lists __new__ which corresponds to PyType_GenericNew and allocates memory for it with PyType_GenericAlloc: This is actually the part where it catches up with PyList_New, finally. All the previous are necessary to handle objects in a generic fashion.



                          In the end, type_call calls list.__init__ and initializes the list with any available arguments, then we go on a returning back the way we came. :-)



                          Finally, remmeber the LOAD_NAME, that's another guy that contributes here.





                          It's easy to see that, when dealing with our input, Python generally has to jump through hoops in order to actually find out the appropriate C function to do the job. It doesn't have the curtesy of immediately calling it because it's dynamic, someone might mask list (and boy do many people do) and another path must be taken.



                          This is where list() loses much: The exploring Python needs to do to find out what the heck it should do.



                          Literal syntax, on the other hand, means exactly one thing; it cannot be changed and always behaves in a pre-determined way.



                          Footnote: All function names are subject to change from one release to the other. The point still stands and most likely will stand in any future versions, it's the dynamic look-up that slows things down.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            15












                            15








                            15







                            The answers here are great, to the point and fully cover this question. I'll drop a further step down from byte-code for those interested. I'm using the most recent repo of CPython; older versions behave similar in this regard but slight changes might be in place.



                            Here's a break down of the execution for each of these, BUILD_LIST for and CALL_FUNCTION for list().





                            The BUILD_LIST instruction:



                            You should just view the horror:



                            PyObject *list =  PyList_New(oparg);
                            if (list == NULL)
                            goto error;
                            while (--oparg >= 0) {
                            PyObject *item = POP();
                            PyList_SET_ITEM(list, oparg, item);
                            }
                            PUSH(list);
                            DISPATCH();


                            Terribly convoluted, I know. This is how simple it is:




                            • Create a new list with PyList_New (this mainly allocates the memory for a new list object), oparg signalling the number of arguments on the stack. Straight to the point.

                            • Check that nothing went wrong with if (list==NULL).

                            • Add any arguments (in our case this isn't executed) located on the stack with PyList_SET_ITEM (a macro).


                            No wonder it is fast! It's custom-made for creating new lists, nothing else :-)



                            The CALL_FUNCTION instruction:



                            Here's the first thing you see when you peek at the code handling CALL_FUNCTION:



                            PyObject **sp, *res;
                            sp = stack_pointer;
                            res = call_function(&sp, oparg, NULL);
                            stack_pointer = sp;
                            PUSH(res);
                            if (res == NULL) {
                            goto error;
                            }
                            DISPATCH();


                            Looks pretty harmless, right? Well, no, unfortunately not, call_function is not a straightforward guy that will call the function immediately, it can't. Instead, it grabs the object from the stack, grabs all arguments of the stack and then switches based on the type of the object; is it a:





                            • PyCFunction_Type? Nope, it is list, list isn't of type PyCFunction


                            • PyMethodType? Nope, see previous.


                            • PyFunctionType? Nopee, see previous.


                            We're calling the list type, the argument passed in to call_function is PyList_Type. CPython now has to call a generic function to handle any callable objects named _PyObject_FastCallKeywords, yay more function calls.



                            This function again makes some checks for certain function types (which I cannot understand why) and then, after creating a dict for kwargs if required, goes on to call _PyObject_FastCallDict.



                            _PyObject_FastCallDict finally gets us somewhere! After performing even more checks it grabs the tp_call slot from the type of the type we've passed in, that is, it grabs type.tp_call. It then proceeds to create a tuple out of of the arguments passed in with _PyStack_AsTuple and, finally, a call can finally be made!



                            tp_call, which matches type.__call__ takes over and finally creates the list object. It calls the lists __new__ which corresponds to PyType_GenericNew and allocates memory for it with PyType_GenericAlloc: This is actually the part where it catches up with PyList_New, finally. All the previous are necessary to handle objects in a generic fashion.



                            In the end, type_call calls list.__init__ and initializes the list with any available arguments, then we go on a returning back the way we came. :-)



                            Finally, remmeber the LOAD_NAME, that's another guy that contributes here.





                            It's easy to see that, when dealing with our input, Python generally has to jump through hoops in order to actually find out the appropriate C function to do the job. It doesn't have the curtesy of immediately calling it because it's dynamic, someone might mask list (and boy do many people do) and another path must be taken.



                            This is where list() loses much: The exploring Python needs to do to find out what the heck it should do.



                            Literal syntax, on the other hand, means exactly one thing; it cannot be changed and always behaves in a pre-determined way.



                            Footnote: All function names are subject to change from one release to the other. The point still stands and most likely will stand in any future versions, it's the dynamic look-up that slows things down.






                            share|improve this answer















                            The answers here are great, to the point and fully cover this question. I'll drop a further step down from byte-code for those interested. I'm using the most recent repo of CPython; older versions behave similar in this regard but slight changes might be in place.



                            Here's a break down of the execution for each of these, BUILD_LIST for and CALL_FUNCTION for list().





                            The BUILD_LIST instruction:



                            You should just view the horror:



                            PyObject *list =  PyList_New(oparg);
                            if (list == NULL)
                            goto error;
                            while (--oparg >= 0) {
                            PyObject *item = POP();
                            PyList_SET_ITEM(list, oparg, item);
                            }
                            PUSH(list);
                            DISPATCH();


                            Terribly convoluted, I know. This is how simple it is:




                            • Create a new list with PyList_New (this mainly allocates the memory for a new list object), oparg signalling the number of arguments on the stack. Straight to the point.

                            • Check that nothing went wrong with if (list==NULL).

                            • Add any arguments (in our case this isn't executed) located on the stack with PyList_SET_ITEM (a macro).


                            No wonder it is fast! It's custom-made for creating new lists, nothing else :-)



                            The CALL_FUNCTION instruction:



                            Here's the first thing you see when you peek at the code handling CALL_FUNCTION:



                            PyObject **sp, *res;
                            sp = stack_pointer;
                            res = call_function(&sp, oparg, NULL);
                            stack_pointer = sp;
                            PUSH(res);
                            if (res == NULL) {
                            goto error;
                            }
                            DISPATCH();


                            Looks pretty harmless, right? Well, no, unfortunately not, call_function is not a straightforward guy that will call the function immediately, it can't. Instead, it grabs the object from the stack, grabs all arguments of the stack and then switches based on the type of the object; is it a:





                            • PyCFunction_Type? Nope, it is list, list isn't of type PyCFunction


                            • PyMethodType? Nope, see previous.


                            • PyFunctionType? Nopee, see previous.


                            We're calling the list type, the argument passed in to call_function is PyList_Type. CPython now has to call a generic function to handle any callable objects named _PyObject_FastCallKeywords, yay more function calls.



                            This function again makes some checks for certain function types (which I cannot understand why) and then, after creating a dict for kwargs if required, goes on to call _PyObject_FastCallDict.



                            _PyObject_FastCallDict finally gets us somewhere! After performing even more checks it grabs the tp_call slot from the type of the type we've passed in, that is, it grabs type.tp_call. It then proceeds to create a tuple out of of the arguments passed in with _PyStack_AsTuple and, finally, a call can finally be made!



                            tp_call, which matches type.__call__ takes over and finally creates the list object. It calls the lists __new__ which corresponds to PyType_GenericNew and allocates memory for it with PyType_GenericAlloc: This is actually the part where it catches up with PyList_New, finally. All the previous are necessary to handle objects in a generic fashion.



                            In the end, type_call calls list.__init__ and initializes the list with any available arguments, then we go on a returning back the way we came. :-)



                            Finally, remmeber the LOAD_NAME, that's another guy that contributes here.





                            It's easy to see that, when dealing with our input, Python generally has to jump through hoops in order to actually find out the appropriate C function to do the job. It doesn't have the curtesy of immediately calling it because it's dynamic, someone might mask list (and boy do many people do) and another path must be taken.



                            This is where list() loses much: The exploring Python needs to do to find out what the heck it should do.



                            Literal syntax, on the other hand, means exactly one thing; it cannot be changed and always behaves in a pre-determined way.



                            Footnote: All function names are subject to change from one release to the other. The point still stands and most likely will stand in any future versions, it's the dynamic look-up that slows things down.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Apr 1 '17 at 18:35

























                            answered Dec 2 '16 at 19:01









                            Jim Fasarakis HilliardJim Fasarakis Hilliard

                            77.3k18157180




                            77.3k18157180























                                8















                                Why is faster than list()?




                                The biggest reason is that Python treats list() just like a user-defined function, which means you can intercept it by aliasing something else to list and do something different (like use your own subclassed list or perhaps a deque).



                                It immediately creates a new instance of a builtin list with .



                                My explanation seeks to give you the intuition for this.



                                Explanation



                                is commonly known as literal syntax.



                                In the grammar, this is referred to as a "list display". From the docs:




                                A list display is a possibly empty series of expressions enclosed in
                                square brackets:



                                list_display ::=  "[" [starred_list | comprehension] "]"


                                A list display yields a new list object, the contents being specified
                                by either a list of expressions or a comprehension. When a
                                comma-separated list of expressions is supplied, its elements are
                                evaluated from left to right and placed into the list object in that
                                order. When a comprehension is supplied, the list is constructed from
                                the elements resulting from the comprehension.




                                In short, this means that a builtin object of type list is created.



                                There is no circumventing this - which means Python can do it as quickly as it may.



                                On the other hand, list() can be intercepted from creating a builtin list using the builtin list constructor.



                                For example, say we want our lists to be created noisily:



                                class List(list):
                                def __init__(self, iterable=None):
                                if iterable is None:
                                super().__init__()
                                else:
                                super().__init__(iterable)
                                print('List initialized.')


                                We could then intercept the name list on the module level global scope, and then when we create a list, we actually create our subtyped list:



                                >>> list = List
                                >>> a_list = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(a_list)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                Similarly we could remove it from the global namespace



                                del list


                                and put it in the builtin namespace:



                                import builtins
                                builtins.list = List


                                And now:



                                >>> list_0 = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(list_0)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                And note that the list display creates a list unconditionally:



                                >>> list_1 = 
                                >>> type(list_1)
                                <class 'list'>


                                We probably only do this temporarily, so lets undo our changes - first remove the new List object from the builtins:



                                >>> del builtins.list
                                >>> builtins.list
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                AttributeError: module 'builtins' has no attribute 'list'
                                >>> list()
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                NameError: name 'list' is not defined


                                Oh, no, we lost track of the original.



                                Not to worry, we can still get list - it's the type of a list literal:



                                >>> builtins.list = type()
                                >>> list()



                                So...




                                Why is faster than list()?




                                As we've seen - we can overwrite list - but we can't intercept the creation of the literal type. When we use list we have to do the lookups to see if anything is there.



                                Then we have to call whatever callable we have looked up. From the grammar:




                                A call calls a callable object (e.g., a function) with a possibly
                                empty series of arguments:



                                call                 ::=  primary "(" [argument_list [","] | comprehension] ")"



                                We can see that it does the same thing for any name, not just list:



                                >>> import dis
                                >>> dis.dis('list()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE
                                >>> dis.dis('doesnotexist()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (doesnotexist)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE


                                For there is no function call at the Python bytecode level:



                                >>> dis.dis('')
                                1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                                2 RETURN_VALUE


                                It simply goes straight to building the list without any lookups or calls at the bytecode level.



                                Conclusion



                                We have demonstrated that list can be intercepted with user code using the scoping rules, and that list() looks for a callable and then calls it.



                                Whereas is a list display, or a literal, and thus avoids the name lookup and function call.






                                share|improve this answer





















                                • 2





                                  +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

                                  – Beefster
                                  Dec 15 '17 at 21:57
















                                8















                                Why is faster than list()?




                                The biggest reason is that Python treats list() just like a user-defined function, which means you can intercept it by aliasing something else to list and do something different (like use your own subclassed list or perhaps a deque).



                                It immediately creates a new instance of a builtin list with .



                                My explanation seeks to give you the intuition for this.



                                Explanation



                                is commonly known as literal syntax.



                                In the grammar, this is referred to as a "list display". From the docs:




                                A list display is a possibly empty series of expressions enclosed in
                                square brackets:



                                list_display ::=  "[" [starred_list | comprehension] "]"


                                A list display yields a new list object, the contents being specified
                                by either a list of expressions or a comprehension. When a
                                comma-separated list of expressions is supplied, its elements are
                                evaluated from left to right and placed into the list object in that
                                order. When a comprehension is supplied, the list is constructed from
                                the elements resulting from the comprehension.




                                In short, this means that a builtin object of type list is created.



                                There is no circumventing this - which means Python can do it as quickly as it may.



                                On the other hand, list() can be intercepted from creating a builtin list using the builtin list constructor.



                                For example, say we want our lists to be created noisily:



                                class List(list):
                                def __init__(self, iterable=None):
                                if iterable is None:
                                super().__init__()
                                else:
                                super().__init__(iterable)
                                print('List initialized.')


                                We could then intercept the name list on the module level global scope, and then when we create a list, we actually create our subtyped list:



                                >>> list = List
                                >>> a_list = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(a_list)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                Similarly we could remove it from the global namespace



                                del list


                                and put it in the builtin namespace:



                                import builtins
                                builtins.list = List


                                And now:



                                >>> list_0 = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(list_0)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                And note that the list display creates a list unconditionally:



                                >>> list_1 = 
                                >>> type(list_1)
                                <class 'list'>


                                We probably only do this temporarily, so lets undo our changes - first remove the new List object from the builtins:



                                >>> del builtins.list
                                >>> builtins.list
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                AttributeError: module 'builtins' has no attribute 'list'
                                >>> list()
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                NameError: name 'list' is not defined


                                Oh, no, we lost track of the original.



                                Not to worry, we can still get list - it's the type of a list literal:



                                >>> builtins.list = type()
                                >>> list()



                                So...




                                Why is faster than list()?




                                As we've seen - we can overwrite list - but we can't intercept the creation of the literal type. When we use list we have to do the lookups to see if anything is there.



                                Then we have to call whatever callable we have looked up. From the grammar:




                                A call calls a callable object (e.g., a function) with a possibly
                                empty series of arguments:



                                call                 ::=  primary "(" [argument_list [","] | comprehension] ")"



                                We can see that it does the same thing for any name, not just list:



                                >>> import dis
                                >>> dis.dis('list()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE
                                >>> dis.dis('doesnotexist()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (doesnotexist)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE


                                For there is no function call at the Python bytecode level:



                                >>> dis.dis('')
                                1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                                2 RETURN_VALUE


                                It simply goes straight to building the list without any lookups or calls at the bytecode level.



                                Conclusion



                                We have demonstrated that list can be intercepted with user code using the scoping rules, and that list() looks for a callable and then calls it.



                                Whereas is a list display, or a literal, and thus avoids the name lookup and function call.






                                share|improve this answer





















                                • 2





                                  +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

                                  – Beefster
                                  Dec 15 '17 at 21:57














                                8












                                8








                                8








                                Why is faster than list()?




                                The biggest reason is that Python treats list() just like a user-defined function, which means you can intercept it by aliasing something else to list and do something different (like use your own subclassed list or perhaps a deque).



                                It immediately creates a new instance of a builtin list with .



                                My explanation seeks to give you the intuition for this.



                                Explanation



                                is commonly known as literal syntax.



                                In the grammar, this is referred to as a "list display". From the docs:




                                A list display is a possibly empty series of expressions enclosed in
                                square brackets:



                                list_display ::=  "[" [starred_list | comprehension] "]"


                                A list display yields a new list object, the contents being specified
                                by either a list of expressions or a comprehension. When a
                                comma-separated list of expressions is supplied, its elements are
                                evaluated from left to right and placed into the list object in that
                                order. When a comprehension is supplied, the list is constructed from
                                the elements resulting from the comprehension.




                                In short, this means that a builtin object of type list is created.



                                There is no circumventing this - which means Python can do it as quickly as it may.



                                On the other hand, list() can be intercepted from creating a builtin list using the builtin list constructor.



                                For example, say we want our lists to be created noisily:



                                class List(list):
                                def __init__(self, iterable=None):
                                if iterable is None:
                                super().__init__()
                                else:
                                super().__init__(iterable)
                                print('List initialized.')


                                We could then intercept the name list on the module level global scope, and then when we create a list, we actually create our subtyped list:



                                >>> list = List
                                >>> a_list = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(a_list)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                Similarly we could remove it from the global namespace



                                del list


                                and put it in the builtin namespace:



                                import builtins
                                builtins.list = List


                                And now:



                                >>> list_0 = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(list_0)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                And note that the list display creates a list unconditionally:



                                >>> list_1 = 
                                >>> type(list_1)
                                <class 'list'>


                                We probably only do this temporarily, so lets undo our changes - first remove the new List object from the builtins:



                                >>> del builtins.list
                                >>> builtins.list
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                AttributeError: module 'builtins' has no attribute 'list'
                                >>> list()
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                NameError: name 'list' is not defined


                                Oh, no, we lost track of the original.



                                Not to worry, we can still get list - it's the type of a list literal:



                                >>> builtins.list = type()
                                >>> list()



                                So...




                                Why is faster than list()?




                                As we've seen - we can overwrite list - but we can't intercept the creation of the literal type. When we use list we have to do the lookups to see if anything is there.



                                Then we have to call whatever callable we have looked up. From the grammar:




                                A call calls a callable object (e.g., a function) with a possibly
                                empty series of arguments:



                                call                 ::=  primary "(" [argument_list [","] | comprehension] ")"



                                We can see that it does the same thing for any name, not just list:



                                >>> import dis
                                >>> dis.dis('list()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE
                                >>> dis.dis('doesnotexist()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (doesnotexist)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE


                                For there is no function call at the Python bytecode level:



                                >>> dis.dis('')
                                1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                                2 RETURN_VALUE


                                It simply goes straight to building the list without any lookups or calls at the bytecode level.



                                Conclusion



                                We have demonstrated that list can be intercepted with user code using the scoping rules, and that list() looks for a callable and then calls it.



                                Whereas is a list display, or a literal, and thus avoids the name lookup and function call.






                                share|improve this answer
















                                Why is faster than list()?




                                The biggest reason is that Python treats list() just like a user-defined function, which means you can intercept it by aliasing something else to list and do something different (like use your own subclassed list or perhaps a deque).



                                It immediately creates a new instance of a builtin list with .



                                My explanation seeks to give you the intuition for this.



                                Explanation



                                is commonly known as literal syntax.



                                In the grammar, this is referred to as a "list display". From the docs:




                                A list display is a possibly empty series of expressions enclosed in
                                square brackets:



                                list_display ::=  "[" [starred_list | comprehension] "]"


                                A list display yields a new list object, the contents being specified
                                by either a list of expressions or a comprehension. When a
                                comma-separated list of expressions is supplied, its elements are
                                evaluated from left to right and placed into the list object in that
                                order. When a comprehension is supplied, the list is constructed from
                                the elements resulting from the comprehension.




                                In short, this means that a builtin object of type list is created.



                                There is no circumventing this - which means Python can do it as quickly as it may.



                                On the other hand, list() can be intercepted from creating a builtin list using the builtin list constructor.



                                For example, say we want our lists to be created noisily:



                                class List(list):
                                def __init__(self, iterable=None):
                                if iterable is None:
                                super().__init__()
                                else:
                                super().__init__(iterable)
                                print('List initialized.')


                                We could then intercept the name list on the module level global scope, and then when we create a list, we actually create our subtyped list:



                                >>> list = List
                                >>> a_list = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(a_list)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                Similarly we could remove it from the global namespace



                                del list


                                and put it in the builtin namespace:



                                import builtins
                                builtins.list = List


                                And now:



                                >>> list_0 = list()
                                List initialized.
                                >>> type(list_0)
                                <class '__main__.List'>


                                And note that the list display creates a list unconditionally:



                                >>> list_1 = 
                                >>> type(list_1)
                                <class 'list'>


                                We probably only do this temporarily, so lets undo our changes - first remove the new List object from the builtins:



                                >>> del builtins.list
                                >>> builtins.list
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                AttributeError: module 'builtins' has no attribute 'list'
                                >>> list()
                                Traceback (most recent call last):
                                File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
                                NameError: name 'list' is not defined


                                Oh, no, we lost track of the original.



                                Not to worry, we can still get list - it's the type of a list literal:



                                >>> builtins.list = type()
                                >>> list()



                                So...




                                Why is faster than list()?




                                As we've seen - we can overwrite list - but we can't intercept the creation of the literal type. When we use list we have to do the lookups to see if anything is there.



                                Then we have to call whatever callable we have looked up. From the grammar:




                                A call calls a callable object (e.g., a function) with a possibly
                                empty series of arguments:



                                call                 ::=  primary "(" [argument_list [","] | comprehension] ")"



                                We can see that it does the same thing for any name, not just list:



                                >>> import dis
                                >>> dis.dis('list()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (list)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE
                                >>> dis.dis('doesnotexist()')
                                1 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (doesnotexist)
                                2 CALL_FUNCTION 0
                                4 RETURN_VALUE


                                For there is no function call at the Python bytecode level:



                                >>> dis.dis('')
                                1 0 BUILD_LIST 0
                                2 RETURN_VALUE


                                It simply goes straight to building the list without any lookups or calls at the bytecode level.



                                Conclusion



                                We have demonstrated that list can be intercepted with user code using the scoping rules, and that list() looks for a callable and then calls it.



                                Whereas is a list display, or a literal, and thus avoids the name lookup and function call.







                                share|improve this answer














                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer








                                edited Jun 16 '18 at 23:25

























                                answered Nov 27 '17 at 14:20









                                Aaron HallAaron Hall

                                177k51305255




                                177k51305255








                                • 2





                                  +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

                                  – Beefster
                                  Dec 15 '17 at 21:57














                                • 2





                                  +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

                                  – Beefster
                                  Dec 15 '17 at 21:57








                                2




                                2





                                +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

                                – Beefster
                                Dec 15 '17 at 21:57





                                +1 for pointing out that you can hijack list and the python compiler can't be sure if it will really return an empty list.

                                – Beefster
                                Dec 15 '17 at 21:57





                                protected by Rizier123 May 20 '15 at 14:22



                                Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Florida Star v. B. J. F.

                                Danny Elfman

                                Lugert, Oklahoma