I need to meassure the time certain parts of my code take. While executing my code on a powerfull server, I get 10 diffrent results
I tried comparing time measured with time.time(), time.perf_counter(), time.perf_counter_ns(), time.process_time() and time.process_time_ns().
import time
for _ in range(10):
start = time.perf_counter()
i = 0
while i < 100000:
i = i + 1
time.sleep(1)
end = time.perf_counter()
print(end - start)
I'm expecting when executing the same code 10 times, to be the same (the results to have a resolution of at least 1ms) ex. 1.041XX and not 1.030sec - 1.046sec.
When executing my code on a 16 cpu, 32gb memory server I'm receiving this result:
1.045549364
1.030857833
1.0466020120000001
1.0309665050000003
1.0464690349999994
1.046397238
1.0309525370000001
1.0312070380000007
1.0307592159999999
1.046095523
Im expacting the result to be:
1.041549364
1.041857833
1.0416020120000001
1.0419665050000003
1.0414690349999994
1.041397238
1.0419525370000001
1.0412070380000007
1.0417592159999999
1.041095523
Your expectations are wrong. If you want to measure code average time consumption use the timeit module. It executes your code multiple times and averages over the times.
The reason your code has different runtimes lies in your code:
time.sleep(1) # ensures (3.5+) _at least_ 1000ms are waited, won't be less, might be more
You are calling it in a tight loop,resulting in accumulated differences:
Quote from time.sleep(..) documentation:
Suspend execution of the calling thread for the given number of seconds. The argument may be a floating point number to indicate a more precise sleep time. The actual suspension time may be less than that requested because any caught signal will terminate the sleep() following execution of that signal’s catching routine. Also, the suspension time may be longer than requested by an arbitrary amount because of the scheduling of other activity in the system.
Changed in version 3.5: The function now sleeps at least secs even if the sleep is interrupted by a signal, except if the signal handler raises an exception (see PEP 475 for the rationale).
Emphasis mine.
Perfoming a code do not take the same time at each loop iteration because of the scheduling of the system (system puts on hold your process to perform another process then back to it...).
I'm new to Python. It is my first interpreted language. I used to study Java so far.
So, when Java program runs for the first time, it is execueted slower than for the next times.
The reasi is caching.
import time
def procedure():
time.sleep(2.5)
# measure process time
t0 = time.clock()
procedure()
print (time.clock() - t0), "seconds process time"
I tried this for several times. The result is always equal. So, am I right that no cashe interferes and that the benchmark is pretty reliable?
it's OK to do benchmarks like this, the accuracy is good enough for functions which run "long" and pretty constant, like in your example.
But there are some pitfalls: for "quick" functions (like the empty one), you run into precision limits. And for functions which vary in execution time (like net i/o, for example), you have to measure multiple times to find min/max/avg runtime.
And in addition to that, the clock best used differs on platforms: on windows, time.clock() is preferred, on *nix, time.time().
luckily, there is a module which takes care of all that: timeit:
>>> import time
>>> def procedure():
pass
>>> def time_this(f):
t0=time.clock()
f()
print((time.clock() - t0), "seconds process time")
>>> time_this(procedure)
1.9555558310457855e-06 seconds process time
>>> time_this(procedure)
1.9555557742023666e-06 seconds process time
>>> time_this(procedure)
1.9555557742023666e-06 seconds process time
>>> import timeit
>>> timeit.Timer(procedure).timeit()
0.09460783423588737
>>> timeit.Timer(procedure).repeat()
[0.09791419021132697, 0.09721947901198291, 0.09598943441130814]
you might want to look at it's source. Or just use it ;)
As for caching: python code compiles to bytecode when first used. This bytecode is cached by default - but this won't affect your benchmark as long as you don't do imports in your function.
I need to wait for about 25ms in one of my functions. Sometimes this function is called when the processor is occupied with other things and other times it has the processor all to itself.
I've tried time.sleep(.25) but sometimes its actually 25ms and other times it takes much longer. Is there a way to sleep for an exact amount of time regardless of processor availability?
Because you're working with a preemptive operating system, there's no way you can guarantee that your process will be able to have control of the CPU in 25ms.
If you'd still like to try, it would be better to have a busy loop that polls until 25ms has passed. Something like this might work:
import time
target_time = time.clock() + 0.025
while time.clock() < target_time:
pass
0.25 seconds are 250 ms, not 25. Apart from this, there is no way to wait for exactly 25 ms on common operating systems – you would need some real-time operating system.
What system are you on? If you're on Windows you may want to do something like this for exact timing:
import ctypes
kernel32 = ctypes.windll.kernel32
# This sets the priority of the process to realtime--the same priority as the mouse pointer.
kernel32.SetThreadPriority(kernel32.GetCurrentThread(), 31)
# This creates a timer. This only needs to be done once.
timer = kernel32.CreateWaitableTimerA(ctypes.c_void_p(), True, ctypes.c_void_p())
# The kernel measures in 100 nanosecond intervals, so we must multiply .25 by 10000
delay = ctypes.c_longlong(.25 * 10000)
kernel32.SetWaitableTimer(timer, ctypes.byref(delay), 0, ctypes.c_void_p(), ctypes.c_void_p(), False)
kernel32.WaitForSingleObject(timer, 0xffffffff)
This code will pretty much guarentee your process will sleep .25 seconds. Watch out though- you may want to lower the priority to 2 or 3 unless it's absolutely critical that this sleeps for .25 seconds. Certainly don't change the priority too high for a user-end product.
Edit: in Windows 10 this nonsense seems unnecessary. Try it like so:
>>> from time import sleep
>>> import timeit
>>> '%.2f%% overhead' % (timeit.timeit('sleep(0.025)', number=100, globals=globals()) / 0.025 - 100)
'0.29% overhead'
.29%, or thereabout, is fairly low overhead, and usually more than accurate enough.
Previous Windows versions will by default have a sleep resolution of 55 msecs, which means your sleep call will take somewhere between 25 and 55 msecs. To get the sleep resolution down to 1 millisecond you need to set the resolution used by Windows by calling timeBeginPeriod:
import ctypes
winmm = ctypes.WinDLL('winmm')
winmm.timeBeginPeriod(1)
Another solution for accurate timings and delay is to use the perf_counter() function from module time. Especially useful in windows as time.sleep is not accurate in milliseconds. See below example where function accurate_delay creates a delay in millisecond.
import time
def accurate_delay(delay):
''' Function to provide accurate time delay in millisecond
'''
_ = time.perf_counter() + delay/1000
while time.perf_counter() < _:
pass
delay = 10
t_start = time.perf_counter()
print('Wait for {:.0f} ms. Start: {:.5f}'.format(delay, t_start))
accurate_delay(delay)
t_end = time.perf_counter()
print('End time: {:.5f}. Delay is {:.5f} ms'.
format(t_end, 1000*(t_end - t_start)))
sum = 0
ntests = 1000
for _ in range(ntests):
t_start = time.perf_counter()
accurate_delay(delay)
t_end = time.perf_counter()
print('Test completed: {:.2f}%'.format(_/ntests * 100), end='\r', flush=True)
sum = sum + 1000*(t_end - t_start) - delay
print('Average difference in time delay is {:.5f} ms.'.format(sum/ntests))
What you intend to do is a real time application. Python (and probably the OS you are using) is not intended to program this kind of applications, where time restriction is so strict.
In order for you to achieve what you are looking for you need a RTOS (Real Time Operating System) and develop your application using a suitable programming language (usually C) following RT best practises.
From the docs of the sleep method:
Suspend execution for the given number of seconds. The argument may be
a floating point number to indicate a more precise sleep time. The
actual suspension time may be less than that requested because any
caught signal will terminate the sleep() following execution of that
signal’s catching routine. Also, the suspension time may be longer
than requested by an arbitrary amount because of the scheduling of
other activity in the system.
The fact is that it depends on your underlying OS.
i have a loop that runs for up to a few hours at a time. how could I have it tell me how long it has been at a set interval?
just a generic...question
EDIT: it's a while loop that runs permutations, so can i have it print the time running every 10 seconds?
Instead of checking the time on every loop, you can use a Timer object
import time
from threading import Timer
def timeout_handler(timeout=10):
print time.time()
timer = Timer(timeout, timeout_handler)
timer.start()
timeout_handler()
while True:
print "loop"
time.sleep(1)
As noted, this is a little bit of a nasty hack, as it involves checking the time every iteration. In order for it to work, you need to have tasks that run for a small percentage of the timeout - if your loop only iterates every minute, it won't print out every ten seconds. If you want to be interrupted, you might consider multithreading, or preferably if you are on linux/mac/unix, signals. What is your platform?
import time
timeout = 10
first_time = time.time()
last_time = first_time
while(True):
pass #do something here
new_time = time.time()
if new_time - last_time > timeout:
last_time = new_time
print "Its been %f seconds" % (new_time - first_time)
Output:
Its been 10.016000 seconds
Its been 20.031000 seconds
Its been 30.047000 seconds
There's a very hacky way to do this by using time.asctime(). You store the asctime before entering the while loop and somewhere in the loop itself. Calculate the time difference between the stored time and the current time and if that difference is 10 seconds, then update the stored time to the current time and print that it's been running.
However, that's a very hacky way to do it as it requires some twisted and boring math.
If your aim is to check the runtime of a specific algorithm, then you're better off using the timeit module
Hope this Helps
Which is better to use for timing in Python? time.clock() or time.time()? Which one provides more accuracy?
for example:
start = time.clock()
... do something
elapsed = (time.clock() - start)
vs.
start = time.time()
... do something
elapsed = (time.time() - start)
As of 3.3, time.clock() is deprecated, and it's suggested to use time.process_time() or time.perf_counter() instead.
Previously in 2.7, according to the time module docs:
time.clock()
On Unix, return the current processor time as a floating point number
expressed in seconds. The precision, and in fact the very definition
of the meaning of “processor time”, depends on that of the C function
of the same name, but in any case, this is the function to use for
benchmarking Python or timing algorithms.
On Windows, this function returns wall-clock seconds elapsed since the
first call to this function, as a floating point number, based on the
Win32 function QueryPerformanceCounter(). The resolution is typically
better than one microsecond.
Additionally, there is the timeit module for benchmarking code snippets.
The short answer is: most of the time time.clock() will be better.
However, if you're timing some hardware (for example some algorithm you put in the GPU), then time.clock() will get rid of this time and time.time() is the only solution left.
Note: whatever the method used, the timing will depend on factors you cannot control (when will the process switch, how often, ...), this is worse with time.time() but exists also with time.clock(), so you should never run one timing test only, but always run a series of test and look at mean/variance of the times.
Others have answered re: time.time() vs. time.clock().
However, if you're timing the execution of a block of code for benchmarking/profiling purposes, you should take a look at the timeit module.
One thing to keep in mind:
Changing the system time affects time.time() but not time.clock().
I needed to control some automatic tests executions. If one step of the test case took more than a given amount of time, that TC was aborted to go on with the next one.
But sometimes a step needed to change the system time (to check the scheduler module of the application under test), so after setting the system time a few hours in the future, the TC timeout expired and the test case was aborted. I had to switch from time.time() to time.clock() to handle this properly.
clock() -> floating point number
Return the CPU time or real time since the start of the process or since
the first call to clock(). This has as much precision as the system
records.
time() -> floating point number
Return the current time in seconds since the Epoch.
Fractions of a second may be present if the system clock provides them.
Usually time() is more precise, because operating systems do not store the process running time with the precision they store the system time (ie, actual time)
Depends on what you care about. If you mean WALL TIME (as in, the time on the clock on your wall), time.clock() provides NO accuracy because it may manage CPU time.
time() has better precision than clock() on Linux. clock() only has precision less than 10 ms. While time() gives prefect precision.
My test is on CentOS 6.4， python 2.6
using time():
1 requests, response time: 14.1749382019 ms
2 requests, response time: 8.01301002502 ms
3 requests, response time: 8.01491737366 ms
4 requests, response time: 8.41021537781 ms
5 requests, response time: 8.38804244995 ms
using clock():
1 requests, response time: 10.0 ms
2 requests, response time: 0.0 ms
3 requests, response time: 0.0 ms
4 requests, response time: 10.0 ms
5 requests, response time: 0.0 ms
6 requests, response time: 0.0 ms
7 requests, response time: 0.0 ms
8 requests, response time: 0.0 ms
As others have noted time.clock() is deprecated in favour of time.perf_counter() or time.process_time(), but Python 3.7 introduces nanosecond resolution timing with time.perf_counter_ns(), time.process_time_ns(), and time.time_ns(), along with 3 other functions.
These 6 new nansecond resolution functions are detailed in PEP 564:
time.clock_gettime_ns(clock_id)
time.clock_settime_ns(clock_id, time:int)
time.monotonic_ns()
time.perf_counter_ns()
time.process_time_ns()
time.time_ns()
These functions are similar to the version without the _ns suffix, but
return a number of nanoseconds as a Python int.
As others have also noted, use the timeit module to time functions and small code snippets.
The difference is very platform-specific.
clock() is very different on Windows than on Linux, for example.
For the sort of examples you describe, you probably want the "timeit" module instead.
I use this code to compare 2 methods .My OS is windows 8 , processor core i5 , RAM 4GB
import time
def t_time():
start=time.time()
time.sleep(0.1)
return (time.time()-start)
def t_clock():
start=time.clock()
time.sleep(0.1)
return (time.clock()-start)
counter_time=0
counter_clock=0
for i in range(1,100):
counter_time += t_time()
for i in range(1,100):
counter_clock += t_clock()
print "time() =",counter_time/100
print "clock() =",counter_clock/100
output:
time() = 0.0993799996376
clock() = 0.0993572257367
time.clock() was removed in Python 3.8 because it had platform-dependent behavior:
On Unix, return the current processor time as a floating point number expressed in seconds.
On Windows, this function returns wall-clock seconds elapsed since the first call to this function, as a floating point number
print(time.clock()); time.sleep(10); print(time.clock())
# Linux : 0.0382 0.0384 # see Processor Time
# Windows: 26.1224 36.1566 # see Wall-Clock Time
So which function to pick instead?
Processor Time: This is how long this specific process spends actively being executed on the CPU. Sleep, waiting for a web request, or time when only other processes are executed will not contribute to this.
Use time.process_time()
Wall-Clock Time: This refers to how much time has passed "on a clock hanging on the wall", i.e. outside real time.
Use time.perf_counter()
time.time() also measures wall-clock time but can be reset, so you could go back in time
time.monotonic() cannot be reset (monotonic = only goes forward) but has lower precision than time.perf_counter()
On Unix time.clock() measures the amount of CPU time that has been used by the current process, so it's no good for measuring elapsed time from some point in the past. On Windows it will measure wall-clock seconds elapsed since the first call to the function. On either system time.time() will return seconds passed since the epoch.
If you're writing code that's meant only for Windows, either will work (though you'll use the two differently - no subtraction is necessary for time.clock()). If this is going to run on a Unix system or you want code that is guaranteed to be portable, you will want to use time.time().
Short answer: use time.clock() for timing in Python.
On *nix systems, clock() returns the processor time as a floating point number, expressed in seconds. On Windows, it returns the seconds elapsed since the first call to this function, as a floating point number.
time() returns the the seconds since the epoch, in UTC, as a floating point number. There is no guarantee that you will get a better precision that 1 second (even though time() returns a floating point number). Also note that if the system clock has been set back between two calls to this function, the second function call will return a lower value.
To the best of my understanding, time.clock() has as much precision as your system will allow it.
Right answer : They're both the same length of a fraction.
But which faster if subject is time ?
A little test case :
import timeit
import time
clock_list = []
time_list = []
test1 = """
def test(v=time.clock()):
s = time.clock() - v
"""
test2 = """
def test(v=time.time()):
s = time.time() - v
"""
def test_it(Range) :
for i in range(Range) :
clk = timeit.timeit(test1, number=10000)
clock_list.append(clk)
tml = timeit.timeit(test2, number=10000)
time_list.append(tml)
test_it(100)
print "Clock Min: %f Max: %f Average: %f" %(min(clock_list), max(clock_list), sum(clock_list)/float(len(clock_list)))
print "Time Min: %f Max: %f Average: %f" %(min(time_list), max(time_list), sum(time_list)/float(len(time_list)))
I am not work an Swiss labs but I've tested..
Based of this question : time.clock() is better than time.time()
Edit : time.clock() is internal counter so can't use outside, got limitations max 32BIT FLOAT, can't continued counting if not store first/last values. Can't merge another one counter...
Comparing test result between Ubuntu Linux and Windows 7.
On Ubuntu
>>> start = time.time(); time.sleep(0.5); (time.time() - start)
0.5005500316619873
On Windows 7
>>> start = time.time(); time.sleep(0.5); (time.time() - start)
0.5