The performance difference now becomes much less pronounced, with an average time of 2.20s for write and 3.10s for print. A simple test for this would be to check performance for long writes as well, where the disadvantages (in terms of speed) for line buffering would be less pronounced. Update: This difference in performance is explained by the fact that write is highly buffered and returns before any writes to disk actually take place (see this answer), whereas print (probably) uses line buffering. Whichever way you choose I'd suggest using with since it makes the code much easier to read. This can be done by setting the optional end parameter, e.g. If you choose to go with print(., file=f) you will probably find that you'll want to suppress the newline from time to time, or replace it with something else. That being said, in most real-world scenarios this will not be an issue. On average write finished in 2.45s on my machine, whereas print took about 4 times as long (9.76s). I did a quick speed comparison and it was considerably faster than print(., file=f) when performing a large number of writes. If you are writing a lot of data and speed is a concern you should probably go with f.write(.). There is no point in using os.linesep on non-Windows systems, and it produces wrong results on Windows. And it's been that simple ever since the first port of Python to Windows. It's this simple: use \n which will be translated automatically to os.linesep. 'hi there' os.linesep is equivalent to 'hi there\r\n', which is NOT equivalent to 'hi there\n'. There is no way that it could produce the same outcome. > f.write('hi there' os.linesep) # same result as previous line ?Īs expected, os.linesep does NOT produce the same outcome as '\n'. ![]() ![]() Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |