Tuple or list when using ‘in’ in an ‘if’ clause?

Which approach is better? Using a tuple, like:

if number in (1, 2):

or a list, like:

if number in [1, 2]:

Which one is recommended for such uses and why (both logical and performance wise)?

Answers:

Thank you for visiting the Q&A section on Magenaut. Please note that all the answers may not help you solve the issue immediately. So please treat them as advisements. If you found the post helpful (or not), leave a comment & I’ll get back to you as soon as possible.

Method 1

The CPython interpreter replaces the second form with the first.

That’s because loading the tuple from a constant is one operation, but the list would be 3 operations; load the two integer contents and build a new list object.

Because you are using a list literal that isn’t otherwise reachable, it is substituted for a tuple:

>>> import dis
>>> dis.dis(compile('number in [1, 2]', '<stdin>', 'eval'))
  1           0 LOAD_NAME                0 (number)
              3 LOAD_CONST               2 ((1, 2))
              6 COMPARE_OP               6 (in)
              9 RETURN_VALUE

Here the second bytecode loads a (1, 2) tuple as a constant, in one step. Compare this to creating a list object not used in a membership test:

>>> dis.dis(compile('[1, 2]', '<stdin>', 'eval'))
  1           0 LOAD_CONST               0 (1)
              3 LOAD_CONST               1 (2)
              6 BUILD_LIST               2
              9 RETURN_VALUE

Here N+1 steps are required for a list object of length N.

This substitution is a CPython-specific peephole optimisation; see the Python/peephole.c source. For other Python implementations then, you want to stick with immutable objects instead.

That said, the best option when using Python 3.2 and up, is to use a set literal:

if number in {1, 2}:

as the peephole optimiser will replace that with a frozenset() object and membership tests against sets are O(1) constant operations:

>>> dis.dis(compile('number in {1, 2}', '<stdin>', 'eval'))
  1           0 LOAD_NAME                0 (number)
              3 LOAD_CONST               2 (frozenset({1, 2}))
              6 COMPARE_OP               6 (in)
              9 RETURN_VALUE

This optimization was added in Python 3.2 but wasn’t backported to Python 2.

As such, the Python 2 optimiser doesn’t recognize this option and the cost of building either a set or frozenset from the contents is almost guaranteed to be more costly than using a tuple for the test.

Set membership tests are O(1) and fast; testing against a tuple is O(n) worst case. Although testing against a set has to calculate the hash (higher constant cost, cached for immutable types), the cost for testing against a tuple other than the first element is always going to be higher. So on average, sets are easily faster:

>>> import timeit
>>> timeit.timeit('1 in (1, 3, 5)', number=10**7)  # best-case for tuples
0.21154764899984002
>>> timeit.timeit('8 in (1, 3, 5)', number=10**7)  # worst-case for tuples
0.5670104179880582
>>> timeit.timeit('1 in {1, 3, 5}', number=10**7)  # average-case for sets
0.2663505630043801
>>> timeit.timeit('8 in {1, 3, 5}', number=10**7)  # worst-case for sets
0.25939063701662235

All methods was sourced from stackoverflow.com or stackexchange.com, is licensed under cc by-sa 2.5, cc by-sa 3.0 and cc by-sa 4.0