CODEWITHSUNDEEP
pythonpython-3.xpython-bytearray
Mikhail M.
Mikhail M.

Reputation: 5988

Is it possible to effectively initialize bytearray with non-zero value?

I need to have huge boolean array. All values should be initialized as "True":

arr = [True] * (10 ** 9)

But created as above it takes too much memory. So I decided to use bytearray for that: 

arr = bytearray(10 ** 9)  # initialized with zeroes

Is it possible to initialize bytearray with b'\x01' as effectively as it is initialized by b'\x00'?

I understand I could initialize bytearray with zeros and inverse my logic. But I'd prefer not to do that if possible.

timeit:

>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> def f1():
...   return bytearray(10**9)
... 
>>> def f2():
...   return bytearray(b'\x01'*(10**9))
... 
>>> timeit(f1, number=100)
14.117428014000325
>>> timeit(f2, number=100)
51.42543800899875

Upvotes: 10

Views: 15078

Answers (3)

ShadowRanger
ShadowRanger

Reputation: 155506

Easy, use sequence multiplication:

arr = bytearray(b'\x01') * 10 ** 9

Same approach works for initializing with zeroes (bytearray(b'\x00') * 10 ** 9), and it's generally preferred, since passing integers to the bytes constructor has been a source of confusion before (people sometimes think they can make a single element bytes with the value of the integer).

You want to initialize the single element bytearray first, then multiply, rather than multiplying the bytes and passing it to the bytearray constructor, so you avoid doubling your peak memory requirements (and requiring reading from one huge array and writing to another, on top of the simple memset-like operation on a single array that any solution requires).

In my local tests, bytearray(b'\x01') * 10 ** 9 runs exactly as fast as bytearray(10 ** 9); both took ~164 ms per loop, vs. 434 ms for multiplying the bytes object, then passing it to bytearray constructor.

Upvotes: 15

zwol
zwol

Reputation: 140768

Consider using NumPy for this sort of thing. On my computer, np.ones (which initializes an array of all-1 values) with boolean "dtype" is just as fast as the bare bytearray constructor:

>>> import numpy as np
>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> def f1(): return bytearray(10**9)
>>> def f2(): return np.ones(10**9, dtype=np.bool)
>>> timeit(f1, number=100)
24.9679438900057
>>> timeit(f2, number=100)
24.732190757000353

If you don't want to use third-party modules, another option with competitive performance is to create a one-element bytearray and then expand that, instead of creating a large byte-string and converting it to a bytearray.

>>> def f3(): return bytearray(b'\x01')*(10**9)
>>> timeit(f3, number=100)
24.842667759003234

Since my computer appears to be slower than yours, here is the performance of your original option for comparison:

>>> def fX(): return bytearray(b'\x01'*(10**9))
>>> timeit(fX, number=100)
56.61828187300125

Cost in all cases is going to be dominated by allocating a decimal gigabyte of RAM and writing to every byte of it. fX is roughly twice as slow as the other three functions because it has to do this twice. A good rule of thumb for you to remember when working with code like this is: minimize the number of allocations. It may be worth dropping down to a lower-level language in which you can explicitly control allocation (if you don't know any such language already, I recommend Rust).

Upvotes: 4

C8H10N4O2
C8H10N4O2

Reputation: 19005

Are you using numpy? You could do:

import numpy as np
np.ones(10,dtype=bool)

Returns:

array([ True,  True,  True,  True,  True,  True,  True,  True,  True,  True], dtype=bool)

Also, you can easily convert back to bytes with ndarray.tobytes() as in:

x = np.ones(10,dtype=bool)
x.tobytes()
# returns: b'\x01\x01\x01\x01\x01\x01\x01\x01\x01\x01'

See this answer for more details.

Upvotes: 3

Related Questions