⚡️ Speed up get_set()
by 51% in posthog/settings/utils.py
#3
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
📄
get_set()
inposthog/settings/utils.py
📈 Performance improved by
51%
(0.51x
faster)⏱️ Runtime went down from
225.54μs
to149.08μs
Explanation and details
Your existing function is pretty efficient, as it already uses set comprehension which is quite speedy in Python. However, there could be a minor optimization if you use map instead of the generator expression. In Python, map() function is kind of faster than list comprehension because it directly produces a list instead of creating a generator first.
The optimized code looks like this.
Please note code readability is also important. If the performance gain of using map() over a generator is marginal or unnoticeable, it's fine to stick with the original implementation in order to have more readable code.
Correctness verification
The new optimized code was tested for correctness. The results are listed below.
🔘 (none found) − ⚙️ Existing Unit Tests
✅ 17 Passed − 🌀 Generated Regression Tests
(click to show generated tests)