Python JIT container type

Question

This is a follow on from this review. Where I am attempting to improve the performance of my rest client.

I have created an container type (as suggested in my previous post) that lazily instantiates object instances from a JSON Array. (Actually a python list of dict's)

The principle behind the class is to store the raw data in the instance.__dict__ as instance._attribute. When the class' __getattribute__ fails __getattr__ is called which replaces instance._attribute with instance.attribute and returns the corresponding item

The __init__ method creates _attribute's by enumerating the supplied *items

I'm able to simulate a sequence container by overwriting __getitem__ which turns the index into a getattr call. (It also works with slice's)

I have purposely left of __reversed__ because I believe python will automatically use reversed(range(len(instance))) to generate reversed index's

I have also left off __bool__ as __len__ is defined

Methods get_id, get_instrument, get_instruments are domain specific to my application.

One caveat is that a helper function create_attribute must be defined. Which is the function that will 'expand' the data into instances

EDIT

I forgot to mention that the class is meant to be immutable

The code:

class Array(object): """Mixin to denote objects that are sent from OANDA in an array. Also used to correctly serialize objects. """ def __init_subclass__(cls, **kwargs): # Denotes the type the Array contains cls._contains = kwargs.pop('contains') # True get_instrument/s() returns an Array of items. False returns single item cls._one_to_many = kwargs.pop('one_to_many', True) def __init__(self, *items): for index, item in enumerate(items): object.__setattr__(self, f'_{index}', item) def __getattr__(self, item): result = create_attribute(self._contains, self.__getattribute__('_' + item)) object.__setattr__(self, item, result) object.__delattr__(self, '_' + item) return result def __len__(self): return len(self.__dict__) def __iter__(self): def iterator(): for index in range(len(self)): try: yield getattr(self, str(index)) except AttributeError: raise StopIteration return iterator() def __add__(self, other): return self.__class__(*self.__dict__.values(), *other) __radd__ = __add__ def __getitem__(self, item): if isinstance(item, slice): return self.__class__(*[self[index] for index in range(len(self))[item]]) return getattr(self, str(item)) def __delattr__(self, item): raise NotImplementedError def __setattr__(self, key, value): raise NotImplementedError def get_id(self, id_, default=None): try: for value in self: if value.id == id_: return value except AttributeError: pass return default def get_instruments(self, instrument, default=None): # ArrayPosition can only have a One to One relationship between an instrument # and a Position. Though ArrayTrades and others can have a Many to One relationship try: matches = self.__class__(*[value for value in self if value.instrument == instrument]) if matches: return matches except AttributeError: pass return default def get_instrument(self, instrument, default=None): try: for value in self: try: if value.instrument == instrument: return value except AttributeError: if value.name == instrument: return value except AttributeError: pass return default def dataframe(self, json=False, datetime_format=None): """Create a pandas.Dataframe""" return pd.DataFrame(obj.data(json=json, datetime_format=datetime_format) for obj in self) 

Console Example:

>>> class LazyLists(Array, contains=list): ... pass ... >>> # must define create_attribute >>> def create_attribute(typ, data): ... return typ(data) ... >>> lazy_lists = LazyLists(*[range(10) for _ in range(2)]) >>> lazy_lists <LazyLists object at 0x000002202BE335F8> >>> len(lazy_lists) 2 >>> lazy_lists.__dict__ {'_0': range(0, 10), '_1': range(0, 10)} >>> lazy_lists[1] [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] >>> lazy_lists.__dict__ {'_0': range(0, 10), '1': [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]} >>> for i in lazy_lists: print(i) ... [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] >>> lazy_lists.__dict__ {'1': [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], '0': [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]} 

I wrote a benchmark to asses if this was worth the effort.

Before previous post

Before Lazy Array class

After Lazy Array class

Entire implementation can be found here. I am interested in what you think about the Array class. How would you have done it better?

Answer 1

The implementation of your Array class still bugs me. So I cloned your repo and renamed Array -> OldArray, then created class NewArray:

class NewArray(object): """Mixin to denote objects that are sent from OANDA in an array. Also used to correctly serialize objects. """ def __contains__(self, item): """Return True if item in this array, False otherwise. Note: this traverses all or part of the array, instantiating the objects. Using `x in array` may, therefore, have a serious impact on performance. """ for value in self: if value == item: return True def __init__(self, *items): """Initialize a new array. The *items passed in are assumed to be JSON data. If an item is accessed, it is passed to `create_attribute` with the appropriate class type. Initially, objects are stored in self._items. When accessed, the objects are reified and stored in self.items. This is transparently handled by self.__getitem__(self, key). """ print(f"NewArray<{self._contains}> with len {len(items)}") self._items = items self.items = [] def __init_subclass__(cls, **kwargs): """Record the type *contained in* the subclass-array. A subclass like: class array_holding_foo(Array, contains=Foo): pass will have all its inner objects instantiated using class Foo. """ cls._contains = kwargs.pop('contains') def __len__(self): return len(self._items) def __iter__(self): """Iterate over items in array. Use integer indexing so that __getitem__ can handle reifying all the objects. """ for index in range(len(self)): yield self[index] def __getitem__(self, key): print(f"getitem[{key}] called on NewArray<{self._contains}>") if isinstance(key, slice): length = len(self.items) start = (0 if key.start is None else key.start if key.start >= 0 else key.start + length) stop = (length if key.stop is None else key.stop if key.stop >= 0 else key.stop + length) step = (1 if key.step is None else key.step) # Note: this reifies the items before putting them in the # new object. return self.__class__(*[self[index] for index in range(start, stop, step)]) length = len(self._items) if key < 0: key += length if not (0 <= key < length): raise IndexError('Array index out of range') if key >= len(self.items): self.items += [None] * (key - len(self.items) + 1) if self.items[key] is None: json = self._items[key] self.items[key] = create_attribute(self._contains, json) return self.items[key] 

I know that this code does less work when an array is created: it creates and sets two attributes in __init__ but doesn't loop at all. I had an older version that set the .items list to [None] * len(items), which made for less work in the __getitem__ method, but it still "looped" N times, so I tried squeezing that out!

But your benchmark using this code averaged a few hundredths of a second slower than the benchmark using your old Array implementation.

I think that means that the limit of performance has been reached. I ran the client_benchmark script 10 times, sorted the times reported, dropped the max and min, and averaged the 8 remaining (for both OldArray and NewArray versions).

Old array: avg time: 6.518096446990967

New array: avg time: 6.587247729301453

My take-away is that your code- as written when you posted this- is close enough to "doing nothing" in performance that tweaking it just produces noise on this benchmark.

Sooooo.... you need another benchmark! Possibly several benchmarks.

You should save this as the "creating arrays" benchmark, and add it to your perftest directory (which you don't have... yet).

Then maybe create some other benchmarks, reflective of actual use cases, which we can use to hammer out the performance of objects when the arrays are actually accessed, instead of just creating them.

Edit:

Also, if slicing is actually used it probably deserves better treatment. There should be a way of copying the json and actual versions in the initializer.