Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Unexpected timing results with file I/O

Reply
Thread Tools

Unexpected timing results with file I/O

 
 
Steven D'Aprano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
After reading an earlier thread about opening and closing lots of files,
I thought I'd do a little experiment.

Suppose you have a whole lot of files, and you need to open each one,
append a string, then close them. There's two obvious ways to do it:
group your code by file, or group your code by procedure.

# Method one: grouped by file.
for each file:
open the file, append the string, then close it


# Method two: grouped by procedure.
for each file:
open the file
for each open file:
append the string
for each open file:
close the file


If you have N files, both methods make the same number of I/O calls: N
opens, N writes, N closes. Which is faster?

Intuitively, the first method has *got* to be faster, right? It's got one
loop instead of three and it doesn't build an intermediate list of open
file objects. It's so *obviously* going to be faster that it is hardly
worth bothering to check it with timeit, right?

Well, I wouldn't be writing unless that intuitive result was wrong. So
here's my test results:


Method 1:

>>> import timeit
>>> names = ['afile' + str(n) for n in range(1000)]
>>> T = timeit.Timer('''for name in names:

.... fp = open(name, 'a'); fp.write('xyz\\n'); fp.close()
.... ''', 'from __main__ import names')
>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))

17.391216039657593


Method 2:

>>> for name in names: # reset the files to an empty state.

.... fp = open(name, 'w'); fp.close()
....
>>> T = timeit.Timer('''files = [open(name, 'a') for name in names]

.... for fp in files:
.... fp.write('xyz\\n')
.... for fp in files:
.... fp.close()
.... ''', '''from __main__ import names''')
>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))

16.823362112045288


Surprisingly, Method 2 is a smidgen faster, by about half a second over
500,000 open-write-close cycles. It's not much faster, but it's
consistent, over many tests, changing many of the parameters (e.g. the
number of files, the number of runs per timeit test, etc.).

I'm using Linux and Python 2.5.

So, what's going on? Can anyone explain why the code which does more work
takes less time?



--
Steven
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Christian Heimes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> So, what's going on? Can anyone explain why the code which does more work
> takes less time?


Short answer: CPU and RAM are much faster than hard disks.

The three loops and the creation of a list costs only a few CPU cycles
compared to flushing the new data to disk.

Christian

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:17:18 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> # Method one: grouped by file.
> for each file:
> open the file, append the string, then close it
>
>
> # Method two: grouped by procedure.
> for each file:
> open the file
> for each open file:
> append the string
> for each open file:
> close the file
>
> Method 1:
>
> 17.391216039657593
>
> Method 2:
>
> 16.823362112045288
>
>
> Surprisingly, Method 2 is a smidgen faster, by about half a second over
> 500,000 open-write-close cycles. It's not much faster, but it's
> consistent, over many tests, changing many of the parameters (e.g. the
> number of files, the number of runs per timeit test, etc.).
>
> I'm using Linux and Python 2.5.
>
> So, what's going on? Can anyone explain why the code which does more work
> takes less time?


Can't confirm this (Linux, Python 2.5):

Method 1: 15.380897998809814
Method 2: 18.085366010665894

I guess it's really all about the disk IO as my system monitor applet
shows that almost all of the time is spend in the kernel and very little
in user space.

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
 
Reply With Quote
 
rdahlstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
On Feb 4, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> After reading an earlier thread about opening and closing lots of files,
> I thought I'd do a little experiment.
>
> Suppose you have a whole lot of files, and you need to open each one,
> append a string, then close them. There's two obvious ways to do it:
> group your code by file, or group your code by procedure.
>
> # Method one: grouped by file.
> for each file:
> open the file, append the string, then close it
>
> # Method two: grouped by procedure.
> for each file:
> open the file
> for each open file:
> append the string
> for each open file:
> close the file
>
> If you have N files, both methods make the same number of I/O calls: N
> opens, N writes, N closes. Which is faster?
>
> Intuitively, the first method has *got* to be faster, right? It's got one
> loop instead of three and it doesn't build an intermediate list of open
> file objects. It's so *obviously* going to be faster that it is hardly
> worth bothering to check it with timeit, right?
>
> Well, I wouldn't be writing unless that intuitive result was wrong. So
> here's my test results:
>
> Method 1:
>
> >>> import timeit
> >>> names = ['afile' + str(n) for n in range(1000)]
> >>> T = timeit.Timer('''for name in names:

>
> ... fp = open(name, 'a'); fp.write('xyz\\n'); fp.close()
> ... ''', 'from __main__ import names')>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))
>
> 17.391216039657593
>
> Method 2:
>
> >>> for name in names: # reset the files to an empty state.

>
> ... fp = open(name, 'w'); fp.close()
> ...>>> T = timeit.Timer('''files = [open(name, 'a') for name in names]
>
> ... for fp in files:
> ... fp.write('xyz\\n')
> ... for fp in files:
> ... fp.close()
> ... ''', '''from __main__ import names''')>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))
>
> 16.823362112045288
>
> Surprisingly, Method 2 is a smidgen faster, by about half a second over
> 500,000 open-write-close cycles. It's not much faster, but it's
> consistent, over many tests, changing many of the parameters (e.g. the
> number of files, the number of runs per timeit test, etc.).
>
> I'm using Linux and Python 2.5.
>
> So, what's going on? Can anyone explain why the code which does more work
> takes less time?
>
> --
> Steven




The code that does more work takes more time. The second one does
quite a bit less work. Think of it like this:

You have 500,000 people to fit through a door. Here are your options:

1. For each person, open the door, walk through the door, then close
the door.
2. Open the door, allow everyone to walk through, then close the
door.

Which one would you say would be a more efficient way to fit 500,000
people through the door?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gabriel Genellina
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
En Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:53:11 -0200, rdahlstrom <(E-Mail Removed)>
escribi�:

> On Feb 4, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Suppose you have a whole lot of files, and you need to open each one,
>> append a string, then close them. There's two obvious ways to do it:
>> group your code by file, or group your code by procedure.
>>
>> # Method one: grouped by file.
>> for each file:
>> open the file, append the string, then close it
>>
>> # Method two: grouped by procedure.
>> for each file:
>> open the file
>> for each open file:
>> append the string
>> for each open file:
>> close the file
>>
>> If you have N files, both methods make the same number of I/O calls: N
>> opens, N writes, N closes. Which is faster?


> The code that does more work takes more time. The second one does
> quite a bit less work. Think of it like this:
>
> You have 500,000 people to fit through a door. Here are your options:
>
> 1. For each person, open the door, walk through the door, then close
> the door.
> 2. Open the door, allow everyone to walk through, then close the
> door.
>
> Which one would you say would be a more efficient way to fit 500,000
> people through the door?


Mmmm, no, the second one should be:

2. Create 500,000 doors and open them.
Make each person enter the room -one at a time- using its own door.
Close each of the 500,000 doors.

--
Gabriel Genellina

 
Reply With Quote
 
Carl Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
On Feb 4, 12:53 pm, rdahlstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
>
>
>
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > After reading an earlier thread about opening and closing lots of files,
> > I thought I'd do a little experiment.

>
> > Suppose you have a whole lot of files, and you need to open each one,
> > append a string, then close them. There's two obvious ways to do it:
> > group your code by file, or group your code by procedure.

>
> > # Method one: grouped by file.
> > for each file:
> > open the file, append the string, then close it

>
> > # Method two: grouped by procedure.
> > for each file:
> > open the file
> > for each open file:
> > append the string
> > for each open file:
> > close the file

>
> > If you have N files, both methods make the same number of I/O calls: N
> > opens, N writes, N closes. Which is faster?

>
> > Intuitively, the first method has *got* to be faster, right? It's got one
> > loop instead of three and it doesn't build an intermediate list of open
> > file objects. It's so *obviously* going to be faster that it is hardly
> > worth bothering to check it with timeit, right?

>
> > Well, I wouldn't be writing unless that intuitive result was wrong. So
> > here's my test results:

>
> > Method 1:

>
> > >>> import timeit
> > >>> names = ['afile' + str(n) for n in range(1000)]
> > >>> T = timeit.Timer('''for name in names:

>
> > ... fp = open(name, 'a'); fp.write('xyz\\n'); fp.close()
> > ... ''', 'from __main__ import names')>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))

>
> > 17.391216039657593

>
> > Method 2:

>
> > >>> for name in names: # reset the files to an empty state.

>
> > ... fp = open(name, 'w'); fp.close()
> > ...>>> T = timeit.Timer('''files = [open(name, 'a') for name in names]

>
> > ... for fp in files:
> > ... fp.write('xyz\\n')
> > ... for fp in files:
> > ... fp.close()
> > ... ''', '''from __main__ import names''')>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))

>
> > 16.823362112045288

>
> > Surprisingly, Method 2 is a smidgen faster, by about half a second over
> > 500,000 open-write-close cycles. It's not much faster, but it's
> > consistent, over many tests, changing many of the parameters (e.g. the
> > number of files, the number of runs per timeit test, etc.).

>
> > I'm using Linux and Python 2.5.

>
> > So, what's going on? Can anyone explain why the code which does more work
> > takes less time?

>
> > --
> > Steven

>
> The code that does more work takes more time. The second one does
> quite a bit less work. Think of it like this:
>
> You have 500,000 people to fit through a door. Here are your options:
>
> 1. For each person, open the door, walk through the door, then close
> the door.
> 2. Open the door, allow everyone to walk through, then close the
> door.
>
> Which one would you say would be a more efficient way to fit 500,000
> people through the door?


Bad analogy. A better analogy would be if each person has their own
door to walk through.

My hunch is that is has to do with the OS I/O scheduling. Closing a
file triggers a cache flush, which in turn triggers the I/O to
schedule a write to disk; the OS scheduler is perhaps more efficient
(for a given number of total writes) when it can combine many writes
at the same time.


Carl Banks
 
Reply With Quote
 
rdahlstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
On Feb 4, 1:12 pm, Carl Banks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:53 pm, rdahlstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-

>
> > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > > After reading an earlier thread about opening and closing lots of files,
> > > I thought I'd do a little experiment.

>
> > > Suppose you have a whole lot of files, and you need to open each one,
> > > append a string, then close them. There's two obvious ways to do it:
> > > group your code by file, or group your code by procedure.

>
> > > # Method one: grouped by file.
> > > for each file:
> > > open the file, append the string, then close it

>
> > > # Method two: grouped by procedure.
> > > for each file:
> > > open the file
> > > for each open file:
> > > append the string
> > > for each open file:
> > > close the file

>
> > > If you have N files, both methods make the same number of I/O calls: N
> > > opens, N writes, N closes. Which is faster?

>
> > > Intuitively, the first method has *got* to be faster, right? It's got one
> > > loop instead of three and it doesn't build an intermediate list of open
> > > file objects. It's so *obviously* going to be faster that it is hardly
> > > worth bothering to check it with timeit, right?

>
> > > Well, I wouldn't be writing unless that intuitive result was wrong. So
> > > here's my test results:

>
> > > Method 1:

>
> > > >>> import timeit
> > > >>> names = ['afile' + str(n) for n in range(1000)]
> > > >>> T = timeit.Timer('''for name in names:

>
> > > ... fp = open(name, 'a'); fp.write('xyz\\n'); fp.close()
> > > ... ''', 'from __main__ import names')>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))

>
> > > 17.391216039657593

>
> > > Method 2:

>
> > > >>> for name in names: # reset the files to an empty state.

>
> > > ... fp = open(name, 'w'); fp.close()
> > > ...>>> T = timeit.Timer('''files = [open(name, 'a') for name in names]

>
> > > ... for fp in files:
> > > ... fp.write('xyz\\n')
> > > ... for fp in files:
> > > ... fp.close()
> > > ... ''', '''from __main__ import names''')>>> min(T.repeat(6, 500))

>
> > > 16.823362112045288

>
> > > Surprisingly, Method 2 is a smidgen faster, by about half a second over
> > > 500,000 open-write-close cycles. It's not much faster, but it's
> > > consistent, over many tests, changing many of the parameters (e.g. the
> > > number of files, the number of runs per timeit test, etc.).

>
> > > I'm using Linux and Python 2.5.

>
> > > So, what's going on? Can anyone explain why the code which does more work
> > > takes less time?

>
> > > --
> > > Steven

>
> > The code that does more work takes more time. The second one does
> > quite a bit less work. Think of it like this:

>
> > You have 500,000 people to fit through a door. Here are your options:

>
> > 1. For each person, open the door, walk through the door, then close
> > the door.
> > 2. Open the door, allow everyone to walk through, then close the
> > door.

>
> > Which one would you say would be a more efficient way to fit 500,000
> > people through the door?

>
> Bad analogy. A better analogy would be if each person has their own
> door to walk through.
>
> My hunch is that is has to do with the OS I/O scheduling. Closing a
> file triggers a cache flush, which in turn triggers the I/O to
> schedule a write to disk; the OS scheduler is perhaps more efficient
> (for a given number of total writes) when it can combine many writes
> at the same time.
>
> Carl Banks


The analogy holds. It's faster to open the door, do what you need to
do, then close the door than it is to open and close the door each
time.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:18:39 -0800, rdahlstrom wrote:

> On Feb 4, 1:12 pm, Carl Banks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 12:53 pm, rdahlstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > You have 500,000 people to fit through a door. Here are your options:

>>
>> > 1. For each person, open the door, walk through the door, then close
>> > the door.
>> > 2. Open the door, allow everyone to walk through, then close the
>> > door.

>>
>> > Which one would you say would be a more efficient way to fit 500,000
>> > people through the door?

>>
>> Bad analogy. A better analogy would be if each person has their own
>> door to walk through.

>
> The analogy holds. It's faster to open the door, do what you need to
> do, then close the door than it is to open and close the door each
> time.


It doesn't hold. Read the code again. The total count of "open door" and
"close door" is the same in both cases.

It's

for every person:
open his door; push him through the door; close his door

vs.

for every person:
open his door
for every person:
push him through the door
for every person:
close his door

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
 
Reply With Quote
 
rdahlstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
It doesn't matter how many doors opening and closing there are, it
matters the order in which the opening, walking through, and closing
are done. That's my point. In the second example, all of the disk
operations are done at the same time. That's what I meant by people
going through the doors. Maybe it was more clear in my head.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:48:32 -0800, rdahlstrom wrote:

> It doesn't matter how many doors opening and closing there are, it
> matters the order in which the opening, walking through, and closing
> are done. That's my point. In the second example, all of the disk
> operations are done at the same time. That's what I meant by people
> going through the doors. Maybe it was more clear in my head.


But my timing shows that method two is slower on my computer. So there is
no obvious winner.

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
wide character file to wstring - unexpected results Christopher C++ 1 12-15-2011 12:27 AM
Timing results without synthesis? Sergey Katsev VHDL 4 10-17-2006 03:07 PM
Unexpected timing results Steven D'Aprano Python 7 02-24-2006 11:10 AM
Unexpected performance results Dave C++ 1 04-08-2004 07:06 PM
Re: unexpected results Scott Lander Perl 0 07-07-2003 02:28 PM



Advertisments