Should import statements always be at the top of a

Question

PEP 08 states:

Imports are always put at the top of the file, just after any module comments and docstrings, and before module globals and constants.

However if the class/method/function that I am importing is only used in rare cases, surely it is more efficient to do the import when it is needed?

Isn't this:

class SomeClass(object):

    def not_often_called(self)
        from datetime import datetime
        self.datetime = datetime.now()

more efficient than this?

from datetime import datetime

class SomeClass(object):

    def not_often_called(self)
        self.datetime = datetime.now()

Answer 1

It's a tradeoff, that only the programmer can decide to make.

Case 1 saves some memory and startup time by not importing the datetime module (and doing whatever initialization it might require) until needed. Note that doing the import 'only when called' also means doing it 'every time when called', so each call after the first one is still incurring the additional overhead of doing the import.

Case 2 save some execution time and latency by importing datetime beforehand so that not_often_called() will return more quickly when it is called, and also by not incurring the overhead of an import on every call.

Besides efficiency, it's easier to see module dependencies up front if the import statements are ... up front. Hiding them down in the code can make it more difficult to easily find what modules something depends on.

Personally I generally follow the PEP except for things like unit tests and such that I don't want always loaded because I know they aren't going to be used except for test code.

Answer 2

Module initialization only occurs once - on the first import. If the module in question is from the standard library, then you will likely import it from other modules in your program as well. For a module as prevalent as datetime, it is also likely a dependency for a slew of other standard libraries. The import statement would cost very little then since the module intialization would have happened already. All it is doing at this point is binding the existing module object to the local scope.

Couple that information with the argument for readability and I would say that it is best to have the import statement at module scope.

Answer 3

The first variant is indeed more efficient than the second when the function is called either zero or one times. With the second and subsequent invocations, however, the "import every call" approach is actually less efficient. See this link for a lazy-loading technique that combines the best of both approaches by doing a "lazy import".

But there are reasons other than efficiency why you might prefer one over the other. One approach is makes it much more clear to someone reading the code as to the dependencies that this module has. They also have very different failure characteristics -- the first will fail at load time if there's no "datetime" module while the second won't fail until the method is called.

Added Note: In IronPython, imports can be quite a bit more expensive than in CPython because the code is basically being compiled as it's being imported.

Answer 4

Module importing is quite fast, but not instant. This means that:

• Putting the imports at the top of the module is fine, because it's a trivial cost that's only paid once.
• Putting the imports within a function will cause calls to that function to take longer.

So if you care about efficiency, put the imports at the top. Only move them into a function if your profiling shows that would help (you did profile to see where best to improve performance, right??)

---

The best reasons I've seen to perform lazy imports are:

• Optional library support. If your code has multiple paths that use different libraries, don't break if an optional library is not installed.
• In the __init__.py of a plugin, which might be imported but not actually used. Examples are Bazaar plugins, which use bzrlib's lazy-loading framework.

Answer 5

There can be a performance gain by importing variables/local scoping inside of a function. This depends on the usage of the imported thing inside the function. If you are looping many times and accessing a module global object, importing it as local can help.

test.py

X=10
Y=11
Z=12
def add(i):
  i = i + 10

runlocal.py

from test import add, X, Y, Z

    def callme():
      x=X
      y=Y
      z=Z
      ladd=add 
      for i  in range(100000000):
        ladd(i)
        x+y+z

    callme()

run.py

from test import add, X, Y, Z

def callme():
  for i in range(100000000):
    add(i)
    X+Y+Z

callme()

A time on Linux shows a small gain

/usr/bin/time -f "\t%E real,\t%U user,\t%S sys" python run.py 
    0:17.80 real,   17.77 user, 0.01 sys
/tmp/test$ /usr/bin/time -f "\t%E real,\t%U user,\t%S sys" python runlocal.py 
    0:14.23 real,   14.22 user, 0.01 sys

real is wall clock. user is time in program. sys is time for system calls.

https://docs.python.org/3.5/reference/executionmodel.html#resolution-of-names

Answer 6

Here's an example where all the imports are at the very top (this is the only time I've needed to do this). I want to be able to terminate a subprocess on both Un*x and Windows.

import os
# ...
try:
    kill = os.kill  # will raise AttributeError on Windows
    from signal import SIGTERM
    def terminate(process):
        kill(process.pid, SIGTERM)
except (AttributeError, ImportError):
    try:
        from win32api import TerminateProcess  # use win32api if available
        def terminate(process):
            TerminateProcess(int(process._handle), -1)
    except ImportError:
        def terminate(process):
            raise NotImplementedError  # define a dummy function

(On review: what John Millikin said.)