Cost of exception handlers in Python

Question

In another question, the accepted answer suggested replacing a (very cheap) if statement in Python code with a try/except block to improve performance.

Coding style issues aside, and assuming that the exception is never triggered, how much difference does it make (performance-wise) to have an exception handler, versus not having one, versus having a compare-to-zero if-statement?

Answer 1

Why don't you measure it using the timeit module? That way you can see whether it's relevant to your application.

OK, so I've just tried the following:

import timeit

statements=["""\
try:
    b = 10/a
except ZeroDivisionError:
    pass""",
"""\
if a:
    b = 10/a""",
"b = 10/a"]

for a in (1,0):
    for s in statements:
        t = timeit.Timer(stmt=s, setup='a={}'.format(a))
        print("a = {}\n{}".format(a,s))
        print("%.2f usec/pass\n" % (1000000 * t.timeit(number=100000)/100000))

Result:

a = 1
try:
    b = 10/a
except ZeroDivisionError:
    pass
0.25 usec/pass

a = 1
if a:
    b = 10/a
0.29 usec/pass

a = 1
b = 10/a
0.22 usec/pass

a = 0
try:
    b = 10/a
except ZeroDivisionError:
    pass
0.57 usec/pass

a = 0
if a:
    b = 10/a
0.04 usec/pass

a = 0
b = 10/a
ZeroDivisionError: int division or modulo by zero

So, as expected, not having any exception handler is slightly faster (but blows up in your face when the exception happens), and try/except is faster than an explicit if as long as the condition is not met.

But it's all within the same order of magnitude and unlikely to matter either way. Only if the condition is actually met, then the if version is significantly faster.

Answer 2

This question is actually answered in the Design and History FAQ:

A try/except block is extremely efficient if no exceptions are raised. Actually catching an exception is expensive.