### Dart-Xeyter's blog

By Dart-Xeyter, history, 5 months ago,

I have a few friends who write rounds in Python, and I noticed that they don't use some very simple optimizations, and the program ends up getting TL. Meanwhile, if you use these constructions, in half or more cases TL is removed.

I will show everything using the example code of my friend I_am_Drew from a 1413B - A New Technique. This code received TL (worked longer than $1$ second).

for __ in range(int(input())):
n, m = list(map(int, input().split()))
kek = []
for i in range(n):
el = list(map(int, input().split()))
el.append(0)
kek.append(el)
stolb = list(map(int, input().split()))
ind = 0
for i in range(m):
if kek[0][i] in stolb:
ind = i
break

for i in range(n):
kek[i][m] = stolb.index(kek[i][ind])

for j in range(m-1):
stolb = list(map(int, input().split()))

kek.sort(key=lambda x: x[m])
for elem in kek:
elem.pop()
print(*elem)


First, as you know, data input and output takes quite a long time. Fortunately, this can be fixed using the sys module. I usually write this way because it's the quickest fix, but of course it's not exactly code-style :)

from sys import stdin, stdout


The stdin.readline function reads a string like input, but faster. Also, if necessary, there is, for example, the stdin.read function, which reads all input as a string (then you need to put ^D after it is completed), and others, but I usually do not use them. The output is more complicated, the stdout.write function accepts only strings, and does not output a line feed or other separator after it. Therefore, you have to write as in the example below, it is also not very long to fix it, the main thing is not to forget :) After the conversions, you get this code. (Note that the input code has not changed at all, but the output at the end is quite a lot).

from sys import stdin, stdout
for __ in range(int(input())):
n, m = list(map(int, input().split()))
kek = []
for i in range(n):
el = list(map(int, input().split()))
el.append(0)
kek.append(el)
stolb = list(map(int, input().split()))
ind = 0
for i in range(m):
if kek[0][i] in stolb:
ind = i
break

for i in range(n):
kek[i][m] = stolb.index(kek[i][ind])

for j in range(m - 1):
stolb = list(map(int, input().split()))

kek.sort(key=lambda x: x[m])
for elem in kek:
elem.pop()
# print(' '.join(map(str, elem)))
for q in elem:
print(str(q)+' ')
print('\n')


It is also known that global variables work longer than local ones, so if you put all the code (of course, without other functions) in, for example, main, it will also work faster. The final version of the code looks like this:

from sys import stdin, stdout

def main():
for __ in range(int(input())):
n, m = list(map(int, input().split()))
kek = [list(map(int, input().split()))+[0] for _ in range(n)]
stolb = list(map(int, input().split()))
ind = 0
for i in range(m):
if kek[0][i] in stolb:
ind = i
break

for i in range(n):
kek[i][m] = stolb.index(kek[i][ind])

for j in range(m - 1):
stolb = list(map(int, input().split()))

kek.sort(key=lambda x: x[m])
for elem in kek:
print(' '.join(map(str, elem[:-1])))
print('\n')

main()


Note that there were very few changes, but the program accelerated at least $2$ times and now gets OK, working in $545$ milliseconds. Of course, you can come up with a lot of optimizations, but these are the main ones, and they work on most tasks and are easy to write. You should understand that, of course, this is not a panacea, and if, for example, in the task input or output $1$ number, optimization of fast input-output becomes useless. However, it comes in handy in many tasks.

Also, keep in mind that although PyPy3 is usually much faster than Python3 (for example, in this task it is $1.5$ times faster), there are situations when Python3 is faster, and I know problems where Python3 solutions get OK, but Pypy3 didn't. This does not mean that every TL needs to be forwarded to Python3, collecting a fine, just keep this in mind. In my experience, Python3 is often faster in problems on string, but of course it's different every time.

I hope this blog will help you use Python even more successfully :)

• +56

By Dart-Xeyter, history, 10 months ago,

P.S. You may have already seen this text, I accidentally published it in the Russian part of Codeforces :)

Hello, Codeforces! I immediately want to apologize for my English, I use a translator and the result may be very stupid :)

So, we all know that Codeforces has a contribution system, if you write something useful (or good memes :), your contribution increases, and you can have more influence on the life of Codeforces (as far as I know, if your contribution is large enough, your vote counts for 2, or even 3).

But sometimes there are situations when a post is made by many people, but only one person can publish it, and because of this, the entire contribution goes to him.

An excellent example is the Education Rounds. As you know, all these rounds are made by the same team of people: awoo, Neon, BledDest, Roms, adedalic and of course vovuh :) But the announcements of rounds are always published by pikmike, and in the end we get that awoo has a contribution of +182, and Neon — 0.

I know that there is a "co-authors" button, and the people you listed there can edit your post and so on, but they still don't get the contributions from this post.

I suggest adding to the "co-authors" button the function of adding a contribution for these people too, or, for example, adding a separate line for listing people who also add a contribution for this post.

Of course, I understand that some people may write something bad and add people like MikeMirzayanov as co-authors, so it might be worth making this button available, starting with candidates like for editing tags for problems, etc.

Another solution to the problem that T1mofey778 suggested to me is that when you are listed as a co-author, you will receive a notification and you would agreе or not, then people like tourist can receive a lot of spam, but you can set a limit, as in messages, people with what minimum rating can try to indicate you as a co-author.