Draw a comparison between the range() and xrange() in Python
In python, both range() and xrange() functions produces the integer
numbers between given start value and stop value.
xrange() function is
only available in Python 2, in Python 3 it has been removed but range()
function of python 3 works same as xrange() of python 2.
so difference
between range() and xrange() functions became relevant only while we
are using python 2.
Let's compare range() and xrange() on the basis of functionality, return value, return type, performance & speed test and compatibility.
1. Functionality
Here both range() and xrange() function generates integer numbers
within given range i.e range(1,5,1) will produce 1, 2, 3, 4 and
xrange (1, 5, 1) will also produce the same. So there is no such
difference between them in terms of functionality.
2. Return Value
range() creates a list , i.e range returns a python range objects.
range(1,100,1) will generate a python range of 99 integers in a
memory at once.
xrange() functions returns an xrange object i.e xrange only stores
the range arguments and generates the number on demand. It
evaluates lazily instead of generating all numbers at once like
range(). Number on demand means, it produces number one by one
as for loop moves to the next number. In every iteration of for
loop, it generates the next number and assigns it to the iterator
variable of for loop.
3. Return Type
range() return type is range object.
xrange() return type is xrange object.
4. Performance and Speed Test
With the help of timeit module to test speed conclusion is drawn
that xrange() is found to be faster than the range() function.
xrange is faster and also saves memory as we know, xrange()
doesn’t generate as static list at the runtime i.e it only keeps one
number in memory at a time to consume less memory but range()
uses a considerable amount of memeory .
So, if dealing with the extensive number xrange() is better else
range.
5. Compatibility
range() is compatible with python 2 and 3.
xrange() is not compatible with python 3.