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

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • 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 834317
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T04:39:14+00:00 2026-05-15T04:39:14+00:00

Is there a faster way to do this in python? [f for f in

  • 0

Is there a faster way to do this in python?

[f for f in list_1 if not f in list_2]

list_1 and list_2 both consist of about 120.000 strings. It takes about 4 minutes to generate the new list.

  • 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
    2026-05-15T04:39:15+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 4:39 am

    If you put list_2 into a set, it should make the containment checking a lot quicker:

    s = set(list_2)
    [f for f in list_1 if not f in s]
    

    This is because x in list is an O(n) check, while x in set is constant-time.

    Another way is to use set-difference:

    list(set(list_1).difference(set(list_2)))
    

    However, this probably won’t be faster than the first way – also, it’ll eliminate duplicates from list_1 which you may not want.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

Is there a faster way to perform this most simple query in terms of
In java is there a faster way of doing this? if (keyCode != 66
Is there a better, more elegant (and/or possibly faster) way than boolean isNumber =
I'm fairly new to C, not having much need to anything faster than python
This is how I have been searching for objects in python. Is there any
is there a better / faster way to create string (std or (const) char
Are there scenarios where JIT compiler is faster than other compilers like C++? Do
Is Protocol Buffer for .NET gonna be lightweight/faster than Remoting(the SerializationFormat.Binary)? Will there be
There is previous little on the google on this subject other than people asking
There seem to be many ways to define singletons in Python. Is there a

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.