Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6090733
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 23, 20262026-05-23T12:14:52+00:00 2026-05-23T12:14:52+00:00

I am baffled by this def main(): for i in xrange(2560000): a = [0.0,

  • 0

I am baffled by this

def main():
    for i in xrange(2560000):
        a = [0.0, 0.0, 0.0]

main()

$ time python test.py

real     0m0.793s

Let’s now see with numpy:

import numpy

def main():
    for i in xrange(2560000):
        a = numpy.array([0.0, 0.0, 0.0])

main()

$ time python test.py

real    0m39.338s

Holy CPU cycles batman!

Using numpy.zeros(3) improves, but still not enough IMHO

$ time python test.py

real    0m5.610s
user    0m5.449s
sys 0m0.070s

numpy.version.version = ‘1.5.1’

If you are wondering if the list creation is skipped for optimization in the first example, it is not:

  5          19 LOAD_CONST               2 (0.0)
             22 LOAD_CONST               2 (0.0)
             25 LOAD_CONST               2 (0.0)
             28 BUILD_LIST               3
             31 STORE_FAST               1 (a)
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-23T12:14:52+00:00Added an answer on May 23, 2026 at 12:14 pm

    Numpy is optimised for large amounts of data. Give it a tiny 3 length array and, unsurprisingly, it performs poorly.

    Consider a separate test

    import timeit
    
    reps = 100
    
    pythonTest = timeit.Timer('a = [0.] * 1000000')
    numpyTest = timeit.Timer('a = numpy.zeros(1000000)', setup='import numpy')
    uninitialised = timeit.Timer('a = numpy.empty(1000000)', setup='import numpy')
    # empty simply allocates the memory. Thus the initial contents of the array 
    # is random noise
    
    print 'python list:', pythonTest.timeit(reps), 'seconds'
    print 'numpy array:', numpyTest.timeit(reps), 'seconds'
    print 'uninitialised array:', uninitialised.timeit(reps), 'seconds'
    

    And the output is

    python list: 1.22042918205 seconds
    numpy array: 1.05412316322 seconds
    uninitialised array: 0.0016028881073 seconds
    

    It would seem that it is the zeroing of the array that is taking all the time for numpy. So unless you need the array to be initialised then try using empty.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

this has baffled me for a couple of hours now. Why do i get
I'm baffled by this one. I tried moving the QPainter to it's own def
I am baffled with this questions. I want to believe that through some Javascript
So I am baffled by this one. I have a function that is responsible
This question has baffled myself and my cohorts. In the program I had written
This issue has me baffled, it's affecting a single user (to my knowledge) and
I'm baffled as to what this SQL statement means: SELECT exhibitor_categories+0 from exhibitor_registry What
This is so incredibly basic that I am totally baffled as to why it
I thought this would be fairly easy, but I'm totally baffled. I want one
I guess this question will sound familiar, but I am yet another programmer baffled

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.