Searching for a string in a large text file - profiling various methods in python

Question

This question has been asked many times. After spending some time reading the answers, I did some quick profiling to try out the various methods mentioned previously...

• I have a 600 MB file with 6 million lines of strings (Category paths from DMOZ project).
• The entry on each line is unique.
• I want to load the file once & keep searching for matches in the data

The three methods that I tried below list the time taken to load the file, search time for a negative match & memory usage in the task manager

---

1) set :
    (i)  data   = set(f.read().splitlines())
    (ii) result = search_str in data   

Load time ~ 10s, Search time ~ 0.0s, Memory usage ~ 1.2GB

---

2) list :
    (i)  data   = f.read().splitlines()
    (ii) result = search_str in data

Load time ~ 6s, Search time ~ 0.36s, Memory usage ~ 1.2GB

---

3) mmap :
    (i)  data   = mmap.mmap(f.fileno(), 0, access=mmap.ACCESS_READ)
    (ii) result = data.find(search_str)

Load time ~ 0s, Search time ~ 5.4s, Memory usage ~ NA

---

4) Hash lookup (using code from @alienhard below):   

Load time ~ 65s, Search time ~ 0.0s, Memory usage ~ 250MB

---

5) File search (using code from @EOL below):   
   with open('input.txt') as f:
       print search_str in f #search_str ends with the ('\n' or '\r\n') as in the file

Load time ~ 0s, Search time ~ 3.2s, Memory usage ~ NA

---

6) sqlite (with primary index on url): 

Load time ~ 0s, Search time ~ 0.0s, Memory usage ~ NA

---

For my use case, it seems like going with the set is the best option as long as I have sufficient memory available. I was hoping to get some comments on these questions :

1. A better alternative e.g. sqlite ?
2. Ways to improve the search time using mmap. I have a 64-bit setup. [edit] e.g. bloom filters
3. As the file size grows to a couple of GB, is there any way I can keep using 'set' e.g. split it in batches ..

[edit 1] P.S. I need to search frequently, add/remove values and cannot use a hash table alone because I need to retrieve the modified values later.

Any comments/suggestions are welcome !

[edit 2] Update with results from methods suggested in answers [edit 3] Update with sqlite results

Solution : Based on all the profiling & feeback, I think I'll go with sqlite. Second alternative being method 4. One downside of sqlite is that the database size is more than double of the original csv file with urls. This is due to the primary index on url

Answer 1

Variant 1 is great if you need to launch many sequential searches. Since set is internally a hash table, it's rather good at search. It takes time to build, though, and only works well if your data fit into RAM.

Variant 3 is good for very big files, because you have plenty of address space to map them and OS caches enough data. You do a full scan; it can become rather slow once your data stop to fit into RAM.

SQLite is definitely a nice idea if you need several searches in row and you can't fit the data into RAM. Load your strings into a table, build an index, and SQLite builds a nice b-tree for you. The tree can fit into RAM even if data don't (it's a bit like what @alienhard proposed), and even if it doesn't, the amount if I/O needed is dramatically lower. Of course, you need to create a disk-based SQLite database. I doubt that memory-based SQLite will beat Variant 1 significantly.