File read using “open()” vs “with open()” [duplicate]

by

Using with statement is not for performance gain, I do not think there are any performance gains or loss associated with using with statement, as long as, you perform the same cleanup activity that using with statement would perform automatically.

When you use with statement with open function, you do not need to close the file at the end, because with would automatically close it for you.

Also, with statement is not just for openning files, with is used in conjuction with context managers. Basically, if you have an object that you want to make sure it is cleaned once you are done with it or some kind of errors occur, you can define it as a context manager and with statement will call its __enter__() and __exit__() methods on entry to and exit from the with block. According to PEP 0343 –

This PEP adds a new statement “with” to the Python language to make it possible to factor out standard uses of try/finally statements.

In this PEP, context managers provide __enter__() and __exit__() methods that are invoked on entry to and exit from the body of the with statement.

Also, performance testing of using with and not using it –

In [14]: def foo():
   ....:     f = open('a.txt','r')
   ....:     for l in f:
   ....:         pass
   ....:     f.close()
   ....:

In [15]: def foo1():
   ....:     with open('a.txt','r') as f:
   ....:         for l in f:
   ....:             pass
   ....:

In [17]: %timeit foo()
The slowest run took 41.91 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached
10000 loops, best of 3: 186 µs per loop

In [18]: %timeit foo1()
The slowest run took 206.14 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached
10000 loops, best of 3: 179 µs per loop

In [19]: %timeit foo()
The slowest run took 202.51 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached
10000 loops, best of 3: 180 µs per loop

In [20]: %timeit foo1()
10000 loops, best of 3: 193 µs per loop

In [21]: %timeit foo1()
10000 loops, best of 3: 194 µs per loop

More Related Contents:

  1. Speed up writing to files
  2. Create or open file in python [closed]
  3. Replace values in a pandas series via dictionary efficiently
  4. Python: List vs Dict for look up table
  5. Print string to text file
  6. Python recursive folder read
  7. How to capture multiple camera streams with OpenCV?
  8. Python threads all executing on a single core
  9. Implement MATLAB’s im2col ‘sliding’ in Python
  10. How do I create an incrementing filename in Python?
  11. Python decompression relative performance?
  12. Python write to a file returns empty file
  13. Pandas pd.Series.isin performance with set versus array
  14. Efficiently detect sign-changes in python
  15. Performance Advantages to Iterators?
  16. Efficient way to take the minimum/maximum n values and indices from a matrix using NumPy
  17. Most efficient way for a lookup/search in a huge list (python)
  18. Numpy vs Cython speed
  19. Create random list of integers in Python
  20. numpy float: 10x slower than builtin in arithmetic operations?
  21. Reading a file with a specified delimiter for newline
  22. Fastest way to write huge data in file
  23. No speedup when summing uint16 vs uint64 arrays with NumPy?
  24. Undo a file readline() operation so file-pointer is back in original state
  25. Write file with specific permissions in Python
  26. Why does this take so long to match? Is it a bug?
  27. “OSError: [Errno 17] File exists” when trying to use os.makedirs [duplicate]
  28. Does python logging flush every log?
  29. Django: Increment blog entry view count by one. Is this efficient?
  30. Creating a numpy array of 3D coordinates from three 1D arrays

Leave a Comment