We Keep Coding

Python: How to compare two hours

I need to call a function, exactly 08:00, 18:00, 22:00 hours. I've created a example to test the comparison between hours. When the current time reaches one of those horary. Put in inside a While loop thinking this example would work as a stopwatch, but I think I'm wrong. How is the best way to compare those values?
currentH= dt.datetime.now().strftime("%H:%M:%S")
h = "16:15:10"
while True:
if(currentH==h):
print 'Ok'
print 'The current Hour is: '+h

import datetime as dt
import time
currentH= dt.datetime.now().replace(microsecond=0).time()
hrs = ['00:02', '12:00']
for i in range(len(hrs)):
h = [int(x) for x in hrs[i].split(':')]
h = dt.datetime.now().replace(hour=h[0], minute=h[1], second=0,microsecond=0).time()
hrs[i] = h
while True:
currentH = dt.datetime.now().replace(microsecond=0).time()
print(currentH)
if currentH in hrs:
print('Time is now',currentH)
time.sleep(1)

The biggest problem with your code is that you never call now() again inside the loop, so you're just spinning forever comparing the initial time to 16:15:10.
While we're at it: Why convert the time to a string for comparison instead of just comparing times?
But there are bigger problems with this design that can't be fixed as easily.
What happens if you check the time at 16:15, then go to sleep, then wake up at 16:25? Then now() never returns 16:15:10.
Also, do you really want to burn 100% CPU for 10 hours?
A better solution is to write a sleep_until function:
def sleep_until(target):
left = target - dt.datetime.now()
if left > dt.timedelta(seconds=0):
time.sleep(left.total_seconds())
(If you're using Python 2.7 or 3.4, it's a bit more complicated, because sleep will wake up early if there's a signal. But to handle that case, you just need to add a while True: loop around the whole thing.)
Now, the only tricky bit is working out the first time you need to sleep until, which isn't all that tricky:
waits = itertools.cycle(dt.timedelta(hours=wait) for wait in (10, 4, 10))
now = dt.datetime.now()
start = dt.datetime.combine(dt.date.today(), dt.time(hour=8))
for wait in waits:
start += wait
if start > now:
break
And now, we just loop over the waits forever, sleeping until each next time:
for wait in waits:
sleep_until(start)
print('Time to make the donuts')
start += wait
Or, of course, you could just grab one of the many scheduling libraries off PyPI.
Or just use your platform's cron/launchd/Scheduled Tasks API to run your script.

Inaccurate while loop timing in Python

I am trying to log data at with a high sampling rate using a Raspberry Pi 3 B+. In order to achieve a fixed sampling rate, I am delaying the while loop, but I always get a sample rate that is a little less than I specify.
For 2500 Hz I get ~2450 Hz
For 5000 Hz I get ~4800 Hz
For 10000 Hz I get ~9300 Hz
Here is the code that I use to delay the while loop:
import time
count=0
while True:
sample_rate=5000
time_start=time.perf_counter()
count+=1
while (time.perf_counter()-time_start) < (1/sample_rate):
pass
if count == sample_rate:
print(1/(time.perf_counter()-time_start))
count=0
I have also tried updating to Python 3.7 and used time.perf_counter_ns(), but it does not make a difference.

The problem you are seeing is because your code is using the real time each time in the loop when it starts each delay for the period duration - and so time spent in untimed code and jitter due to OS multitasking accumulates, reducing the overall period below what you want to achieve.
To greatly increase the timing accuracy, use the fact that each loop "should" finish at the period (1/sample_rate) after it should have started - and maintain that start time as an absolute calculation rather than the real time, and wait until the period after that absolute start time, and then there is no drift in the timing.
I put your timing into timing_orig and my revised code using absolute times into timing_new - and results are below.
import time
def timing_orig(ratehz,timefun=time.clock):
count=0
while True:
sample_rate=ratehz
time_start=timefun()
count+=1
while (timefun()-time_start) < (1.0/sample_rate):
pass
if count == ratehz:
break
def timing_new(ratehz,timefun=time.clock):
count=0
delta = (1.0/ratehz)
# record the start of the sequence of timed periods
time_start=timefun()
while True:
count+=1
# this period ends delta from "now" (now is the time_start PLUS a number of deltas)
time_next = time_start+delta
# wait until the end time has passed
while timefun()<time_next:
pass
# calculate the idealised "now" as delta from the start of this period
time_start = time_next
if count == ratehz:
break
def timing(functotime,ratehz,ntimes,timefun=time.clock):
starttime = timefun()
for n in range(int(ntimes)):
functotime(ratehz,timefun)
endtime = timefun()
# print endtime-starttime
return ratehz*ntimes/(endtime-starttime)
if __name__=='__main__':
print "new 5000",timing(timing_new,5000.0,10.0)
print "old 5000",timing(timing_orig,5000.0,10.0)
print "new 10000",timing(timing_new,10000.0,10.0)
print "old 10000",timing(timing_orig,10000.0,10.0)
print "new 50000",timing(timing_new,50000.0,10.0)
print "old 50000",timing(timing_orig,50000.0,10.0)
print "new 100000",timing(timing_new,100000.0,10.0)
print "old 100000",timing(timing_orig,100000.0,10.0)
Results:
new 5000 4999.96331002
old 5000 4991.73952992
new 10000 9999.92662005
old 10000 9956.9314274
new 50000 49999.6477761
old 50000 49591.6104893
new 100000 99999.2172809
old 100000 94841.227219
Note I didn't use time.sleep() because it introduced too much jitter. Also, note that even though this minimal example shows very accurate timing even up to 100khz on my Windows laptop, if you put more code into the loop than there is time to execute, the timing will run correspondingly slow.
Apologies I used Python 2.7 which doesn't have the very convenient time.perf_counter() function - add an extra parameter timefun=time.perf_counter() to each of the calls to timing()

I think you can fix this pretty easily by rearranging your code as such:
import time
count=0
sample_rate=5000
while True:
time_start=time.perf_counter()
# do all the real stuff here
while (time.perf_counter()-time_start) < (1/sample_rate):
pass
This way python does the waiting after you execute the code, rather than before, so the time the interpreter takes to run it will not be added to your sample rate. As danny said, it's an interpreted language so that might introduce timing inconsistencies, but this way should at least decrease the effect you are seeing.
Edit for proof that this works:
import sys
import time
count=0
sample_rate=int(sys.argv[1])
run_start = time.time()
while True:
time_start=time.time()
a = range(10)
b = range(10)
for x in a:
for y in b:
c = a+b
count += 1
if count == sample_rate*2:
break
while (time.time()-time_start) < (1.0/sample_rate):
pass
real_rate = sample_rate*2/(time.time()-run_start)
print real_rate, real_rate/sample_rate
So the testing code does a solid amount of random junk for 2 seconds and then prints the real rate and the percentage of the actual rate that turns out to be. Here's some results:
~ ><> python t.py 1000
999.378471674 0.999378471674
~ ><> python t.py 2000
1995.98713838 0.99799356919
~ ><> python t.py 5000
4980.90553757 0.996181107514
~ ><> python t.py 10000
9939.73553783 0.993973553783
~ ><> python t.py 40000
38343.706669 0.958592666726
So, not perfect. But definitely better than a ~700Hz drop at a desired 10000. The accepted answer is definitely the right one.

Make a timer using sleep in python. How to account for computation time?

I'm trying to make a simple timer which prints the time remaining every second.
for k in range(100):
print(100-k)
t.sleep(1)
#output
#100
#99
#98
#...
#1
However, this will take slightly longer than 100 seconds, because there will be a delay added when print() is used. For long periods, this is slightly noticeable. Is there a way to account for this, and accurately display the time every second? I know I could just sleep(100), but this wouldn't let the time left be printed.

import time
start_time=time.time()
for k in range(25):
print(25-k)
time.sleep(1)
print("it took "+str(float(time.time()-start_time)*1000)+" Milliseconds")
the output with print is: it took 26412.75382041931 Milliseconds
the output without print : it took 25053.035020828247 Milliseconds
it should have been just 25000 milliseconds but it is not
printing will take time, even reading the code takes time
point is don't expect accurate timing with time.sleep() !!!

You can use time.time() to measure elapsed time.
import time
start_time = time.time()
for k in range(100):
# k seconds SHOULD be elapsed at this point
print(100 - k)
slept_time = time.time() - start_time
time.sleep(1 + k-slept_time)

Using time.sleep will never give you the accurate time for your timer, since the time it takes is the one second sleep time + printing time, you can use threading.Timer to get more accurate results. https://repl.it/Hwkt :
import threading, time
start_time=time.time()
def count_loop(counter):
if counter <= 0:
print("it took "+str(float(time.time()-start_time)*1000)+" Milliseconds")
return
threading.Timer(1.0, count_loop, args=[counter-1]).start()
print(counter)
count_loop(100)
This is still not accurate, but with only very minimum offset, only 45 ms. However, when using time.sleep from legendisback's example, there is apparently 81 ms delay. https://repl.it/HwlK

What is the best/most efficient way to output value every x seconds during a loop

I have always been curious about this as the simple way is definitely not efficient. How would you efficiently go about outputting a value every x seconds?
Here is an example of what I mean:
import time
num = 50000000
startTime = time.time()
j=0
for i in range(num):
j = (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
print time.time() - startTime
#output time: 24 seconds
startTime = time.time()
newTime = time.time()
j=0
for i in range(num):
j = (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
if time.time() - newTime > 0.5:
newTime = time.time()
print i
print time.time() - startTime
#output time: 32 seconds
A whole 1/3rd faster when not outputting the progress every half a second.
I know this is because it requires an extra calculation every loop, but the same applies with other similar checks you may want to do - how would you go about implementing something like this without seriously affecting the execution time?

Well, you know that you're doing many iterations per second, so you really don't need to make the time.time() call on every iteration. You can use a modulo operator to only actually check if you need to output something every N iterations of the loop.
startTime = time.time()
newTime = time.time()
j=0
for i in range(num):
j = (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
if i % 50 == 0: # Only check every 50th iteration
if time.time() - newTime > 0.5:
newTime = time.time()
print i, newTime
print time.time() - startTime
# 45 seconds (the original version took 42 on my system)
Checking only every 50 iterations reduces my run time from 56 seconds to 43 (the original took with no printing 42, and Tom Page's solution took 50 seconds), and the iterations complete quickly enough that its still outputting exactly every 0.5 seconds according to time.time():
0 1409083225.39
605000 1409083225.89
1201450 1409083226.39
1821150 1409083226.89
2439250 1409083227.39
3054400 1409083227.89
3644100 1409083228.39
4254350 1409083228.89
4831600 1409083229.39
5433450 1409083229.89
6034850 1409083230.39
6644400 1409083230.89
7252650 1409083231.39
7840100 1409083231.89
8438300 1409083232.39
9061200 1409083232.89
9667350 1409083233.39
...

You might save a few clock cycles by keeping track of the next time that a print is due
nexttime = time.time() + 0.5
And then your condition will be a simple comparison
If time.time() >= nexttime
As opposed to a subtraction followed by a comparison
If time.time() - newTime > 0.5
You'll only have to do an addition after each message as opposed to doing a subtraction after each itteration

I tried it with a sideband thread doing the printing. It added 5 seconds to exec time on python 2.x but virtually not extra time on python 3.x. Python 2.x threads have a lot of overhead. Here's my example with timing included as comments:
import time
import threading
def showit(event):
global i # could pass in a mutable object instead
while not event.is_set():
event.wait(.5)
print 'value is', i
num = 50000000
startTime = time.time()
j=0
for i in range(num):
j = (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
print time.time() - startTime
#output time: 23 seconds
event = threading.Event()
showit_thread = threading.Thread(target=showit, args=(event,))
showit_thread.start()
startTime = time.time()
j=0
for i in range(num):
j = (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
event.set()
time.sleep(.1)
print time.time() - startTime
#output time: 28 seconds

If you want to wait a specified period of time before doing something, just use the time.sleep() method.
for i in range(100):
print(i)
time.sleep(0.5)
This will wait half a second before printing the next value of i.

If you don't care about Windows, signal.setitimer will be simpler than using a background thread, and on many *nix platforms a whole lot more efficient.
Here's an example:
import signal
import time
num = 50000000
startTime = time.time()
def ontimer(sig, frame):
global i
print(i)
signal.signal(signal.SIGVTALRM, ontimer)
signal.setitimer(signal.ITIMER_VIRTUAL, 0.5, 0.5)
j=0
for i in range(num):
j = (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
signal.setitimer(signal.ITIMER_VIRTUAL, 0)
print(time.time() - startTime)
This is about as close to free as you're going to get performance-wise.
In some use cases, a virtual timer isn't sufficiently accurate, so you need to change that to ITIMER_REAL and change the signal to SIGALRM. That's a little more expensive, but still pretty cheap, and still dead simple.
On some (older) *nix platforms, alarm may be more efficient than setitmer, but unfortunately alarm only takes integral seconds, so you can't use it to fire twice/second.
Timings from my MacBook Pro:
no output: 15.02s
SIGVTALRM: 15.03s
SIGALRM: 15.44s
thread: 19.9s
checking time.time(): 22.3s
(I didn't test with either dano's optimization or Tom Page's; obviously those will reduce the 22.3, but they're not going to get it down to 15.44…)

Part of the problem here is that you're using time.time.
On my MacBook Pro, time.time takes more than 1/3rd as long as all of the work you're doing:
In [2]: %timeit time.time()
10000000 loops, best of 3: 105 ns per loop
In [3]: %timeit (((j+10)**0.5)**2)**0.5
1000000 loops, best of 3: 268 ns per loop
And that 105ns is fast for time—e.g., an older Windows box with no better hardware timer than ACPI can take 100x longer.
On top of that, time.time is not guaranteed to have enough precision to do what you want anyway:
Note that even though the time is always returned as a floating point number, not all systems provide time with a better precision than 1 second.
Even on platforms where it has better precision than 1 second, it may have a lower accuracy; e.g., it may only be updated once per scheduler tick.
And time isn't even guaranteed to be monotonic; on some platforms, if the system time changes, time may go down.
Calling it less often will solve the first problem, but not the others.
So, what can you do?
Unfortunately, there's no built-in answer, at least not with Python 2.7. The best solution is different on different platforms—probably GetTickCount64 on Windows, clock_gettime with the appropriate clock ID on most modern *nixes, gettimeofday on most other *nixes. These are relatively easy to use via ctypes if you don't want to distribute a C extension… but someone really should wrap it all up in a module and post it on PyPI, and unfortunately I couldn't find one…

With python: intervals at x:00 repeat

How do I sched a repeat timer for 5 min intervals. Which fire at 00 seconds, then repeat at 00. Ok, not hard real-time but as close as possible with sys lags. Trying to avoid a build up in lags and get near 00.
Lang: Python, OS: WinXP x64
System has 25ms resolution.
Any code would be helpful, tia

I don't know how to do it any more accurately than with threading.Timer. It's "one-shot", but that just means the function you schedule that way must immediately re-schedule itself for another 300 seconds later, first thing. (You can add accuracy by measuring the exact time with time.time each time and varying the next scheduling delay accordingly).

Try and compare the time printouts of these two code samples:
Code Sample 1
import time
delay = 5
while True:
now = time.time()
print time.strftime("%H:%M:%S", time.localtime(now))
# As you will observe, this will take about 2 seconds,
# making the loop iterate every 5 + 2 seconds or so.
## repeat 5000 times
for i in range(5000):
sum(range(10000))
# This will sleep for 5 more seconds
time.sleep(delay)
Code Sample 2
import time
delay = 5
while True:
now = time.time()
print time.strftime("%H:%M:%S", time.localtime(now))
# As you will observe, this will take about 2 seconds,
# but the loop will iterate every 5 seconds because code
# execution time was accounted for.
## repeat 5000 times
for i in range(5000):
sum(range(10000))
# This will sleep for as long as it takes to get to the
# next 5-second mark
time.sleep(delay - (time.time() - now))