rlazo's blog » Python

Nice Python Gems

Rodrigo — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 01:44:02 +0000

EDIT (9/18/2011): There is another way of having a default value in python dictionaries, and it’s using the defaultdict class in the collections module (python 2.5). Here are the docs.

I was checking my old bookmarks and I stumbled upon these two blog posts: Gems of Python by Eric Florenzano and Python gems of my own by Eric Holscher.

Did you know about setdefault for dicts? I’ve found myself more than once using a dict as a multimap and I always felt that there must be a better way of doing it than this:

dct = {}
items = ['anne', 'david', 'kevin', 'eric', 'anthony', 'andrew']
for name in items:
    if name[0] not in dct:
        dct[name[0]] = []
    dct[name[0]].append(name)

And I was right, from Eric Florenzano’s post:

dct = {}
items = ['anne', 'david', 'kevin', 'eric', 'anthony', 'andrew']
for name in items:
    dct.setdefault(name[0], []).append(name)

I knew it…

Create a tarball from a specific git commit

Rodrigo — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:10:28 +0000

I have this code I’m working on that is needs to be deployed remotely (Fabric makes this SO easy) and I’m using git as my version control system. Well, I was creating tarballs for this, but I was basically doing them as similar as I could to what git had in the tree (ignoring the same files, etc.), so it was kind of repetitive and, boring. Well, git to the rescue!!!

git archive --format=tar HEAD | gzip > myproject.tar.gz

And you have a nice clean zipped tarball of your code as is on HEAD, without tears

Git is awesome!

Performance of in operator using list and set

Rodrigo — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:16:49 +0000

I had this use case where I have to check which elements of a list of words where available in another list of words. So I decided to use the operator in. Just for further reference a tried the following:

# common code for all test
base_list = [...]
query_list = [...]

Pretty simple method:
```
for word in query_list:
  if word in base_list:
    # do something
```
For a list of 4284 elements against a list of 107 it took 9 seconds. Using simple lists, this method is the most straight forward of all, and also the slowest one.
Sorting things:
```
base_list.sort()
for word in query_list:
  if word in base_list:
    # do something
```
After sorting the list, guess what? Yeap, nothing changed, same 9 seconds
What about sets?
```
bs = set(base_list)
for word in query_list:
  if word in bs:
    # do something
```
Using sets this is another history, 0.6 seconds for the same amount of data; but… if this could be achived turning one of lists into a set, what if…

Using more sets

bs = set(base_list)
qs = set(query_list)
solution = bs.intersection(qs)

0.02 seconds.

Well, as you can see, sets are great.