## The power of reduce | Pydon't 🐍

In this Pydon't we will take a look at the reduce function, which used to be a built-in function and is currently in the functools module.

(If you are new here and have no idea what a Pydon't is, you may want to read the Pydon't Manifesto.)

# Introduction

In this Pydon't I'll talk about reduce, a function that used to be a built-in function and that was moved to the functools module with Python 3.

Throughout all of the Pydon'ts I have been focusing only on Python features that you can use without having to import anything, so in that regard this Pydon't will be a little bit different.

In this Pydon't, you will:

• see how reduce works;
• learn about the relationship between reduce and for loops;
• notice that reduce hides in a handful of other built-in functions we all know and love;
• learn about a neat use-case for reduce;

# How reduce works

reduce is a tool that is typically associated with functional programming, which is a programming paradigm that I feel sometimes is underappreciated. In a short sentence, reduce takes an iterable and a binary function (a function that takes two arguments), and then uses that binary function to boil the iterable down to a single value.

This might sound weird or complicated, so the best thing I can do is to show you a simplified implementation of reduce:

def reduce(function, iterable, initial_value):
result = initial_value
for value in iterable:
result = function(result, value)
return result

If you look at it, there really isn't much going on inside that for loop: we just keep updating the result variable with the argument function and the consecutive values in the iterable argument.

But I can make this even easier to understand for you. And, in order to do that, I just have to point out a bunch of reduce use cases that you use all the time! Perhaps the simplest one, and the one that shows up more often, is the sum built-in:

>>> sum(range(10))
45
>>> from functools import reduce; import operator
45

The operator.add there is just a way to programmatically refer to the built-in addition with + in Python.

From the documentation on operator,

“The operator module exports a set of efficient functions corresponding to the intrinsic operators of Python. For example, operator.add(x, y) is equivalent to the expression x+y.”

You probably have seen sum before, right? It just adds up all the elements in an iterable. That's basically what reduce does, if the function we give it is the addition. To make the connection clearer, let's implement our own sum function:

def sum(iterable):
acc = 0
for elem in iterable:
acc += elem
return acc

Are you comfortable with the implementation above? Now let me rejig it a little bit:

def sum(iterable, start=0):
acc = start
for elem in iterable:
acc = acc + elem
return acc

Now, our sum function can start adding up at a different value and we use the operator.add function instead of using + or modified assignment +=. Let us now stack this alternative implementation side by side with the original reduce implementation:

def sum(iterable, start=0):     # def reduce(function, iterable, initial_value):
acc = start                 #     result = initial_value
for elem in iterable:       #     for value in iterable:
acc = acc + elem        #         result = function(result, value)
return acc                  #     return result

Can you see how they are the same thing?

# The rabbit hole of the built-in reductions

## Some built-ins

Now that we have seen that sum is a reduction, what other built-in functions are reductions? Well, part of what a reduction does is taking an iterable and reducing it to a single value. What built-in functions do that?

Going through the list of built-in functions in the docs, here are some functions that catch my attention:

• all – expects an iterable of truthy/falsy values and returns a Boolean;
• any – expects an iterable of truthy/falsy values and returns a Boolean;
• max – accepts an iterable of numbers and returns a single number;
• min – accepts an iterable of numbers and returns a single number;
• sum – we've seen this one already;

Can you implement all of these with a for loop? Can you write all of these as reductions?

I'll give you a hand with the reductions:

>>> all = lambda iterable: reduce(operator.and_, iterable)
>>> any = lambda iterable: reduce(operator.or_,  iterable)
>>> # Define max on iterables at the expense of just the binary max.
>>> max_ = lambda a, b: a if a >= b else b
>>> max = lambda iterable: reduce(max_,          iterable)
>>> # Define min on iterables at the expense of just the binary min.
>>> min_ = lambda a, b: a if a <= b else b
>>> min = lambda iterable: reduce(min_,          iterable)
>>> sum = lambda iterable: reduce(operator.add,  iterable)

I just find it very interesting that there are so many reductions amongst the built-in functions! That makes you think that reduce really is a powerful tool, right? Given that it is worth adding five specialised reductions to the built-ins...

## Other common reductions

And there is more, of course. If we use operator.mul (for multiplication), then we get the math.prod function that we can use to multiply all the numbers in an iterable:

>>> from math import prod
>>> prod(range(1, 11))  # 10!
3628800
>>> reduce(operator.mul, range(1, 11))
3628800

What if you have a bunch of strings that you want to piece together? For example, what if you have a list of words that you want to put back together, separated by spaces?

>>> words = ["Do", "I", "like", "reductions?"]
>>> " ".join(words)
'Do I like reductions?'

If we define “string addition” to be the concatenation of the two strings, but with a space in the middle, then we get the same thing:

>>> reduce(lambda s1, s2: s1 + " " + s2, words)
'Do I like reductions?'

Now, please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting you start using reduce when you need to join strings. I am just trying to show you how these patterns are so common and appear in so many places, even if you don't notice them.

# Why bother?

Why should you bother with knowing that reduce exists, and how it works? Because that is what “learning Python” means: you need to be exposed to the library, to the built-ins, you need to learn new algorithms, new ways of doing things, new tools.

reduce is another tool you now have in your toolbelt. Maybe it is not something you will use every day. Maybe it is something you will use once a year. Or even less. But when the time comes, you can use it, and your code will be better for that: because you know how to use the right tool for the job.

People learn a lot by building knowledge on top of the things that they already learned elsewhere... And the more you learn elsewhere, the more connections with different things you can make, and the more things you can discover. Maybe this article does nothing for you, but maybe this article was the final push you needed to help something else click. Or maybe it feels irrelevant now, but in 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year, something else will click because you took the time to learn about reduce and to understand how it relates to all these other built-in functions.

# Far-fetched reductions

The reductions above were reductions that are more “normal”, but we can do all kinds of interesting things with reduce! Skip this section altogether if you are starting to feel confused or repulsed by reductions, I don't want to damage your relationship with reduce beyond repair. This section contains some reductions that are – well, how to put this nicely..? – that are not necessarily suitable for production.

## First and last

Here's is a little amusing exercise for you. Can you write a reduction that, given an iterable, returns its first element? Similarly, can you write a reduction that, given an iterable, returns its last element?

Give it some thought, really.

Ok, here are my proposed solutions:

>>> left = lambda l, r: l
>>> reduce(left, range(10))
0
>>> right = lambda l, r: r
>>> reduce(right, range(10))
9

[I wrote the text above, a couple of hours went by, and then I came back.]

I have to be honest with you: I started out thinking these are crazy, but in all honesty, how do you write a function to retrieve the last element of an iterable? Mind you, iterables are not necessarily indexable, so something like iterable[-1] isn't guaranteed to work. How would you do it? You could write a for loop:

def get_last(iterable):
for elem in iterable:
last = elem
return last

But why is that any better than the alternative below?

from functools import reduce
def get_last(iterable):
return reduce(lambda l, r: r, iterable)

Feel free to leave your opinions in the comments below. I actually like the reduce alternative.

## Creating built-in types

Another couple of reductions I wouldn't recommend for production are the replacements for dict, list, set, and tuple. For example, if you have an iterable, how do you build the corresponding tuple? How do you write that as a reduction? Well, for this one you need to remember that reduce accepts a third argument that is the initial value that we are modifying...

Do you get it? The third argument needs to be an empty tuple:

>>> reduce(lambda t, v: t + (v,), range(10), ())
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

With similar workarounds, you can redefine dict, list, and set, as reductions. Again, not that I recommend that.

# The identity element...

## ...or lack thereof

We have seen some reductions already and, if you were brave enough, you even took a sneak peek at some crazy reductions in the previous section. However, up until now, I have been (purposefully) not giving much attention to the third argument to reduce. Let us discuss it briefly.

First, why do we need a third argument to reduce? Well... because we like things to work:

>>> from functools import reduce
>>> import operator
>>> sum([1, 2])
3
3
>>> sum([1])
1
1
>>> sum([])
0
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: reduce() of empty sequence with no initial value

From a strictly practical point of view, the third argument to reduce exists so that reduce can know what to return in case the given iterable is empty. This means that, in general, you don't need to worry about that argument if you know your iterables are never going to be empty...

The documentation is quite clear with regards to how it uses this third argument, to which they refer as initializer:

“If the optional initializer is present, it is placed before the items of the iterable in the calculation, and serves as a default when the iterable is empty. If initializer is not given and iterable contains only one item, the first item is returned.” [functools.reduce Python 3 docs, 8th June 2021].

So, in practical terms, you only really need the initializer when the iterable is empty, and therefore you should use it when it might happen that you pass an empty iterable into reduce.

## What is the identity element

So, if you cannot be 101% sure your iterable is not going to be empty, how do you decide what value to use in the third argument to reduce? How do you pick the initializer argument? Well, the value that initializer should have depends on the function you are using in your reduction and, in particular, the initializer should be an identity element for that function. What does that mean?

Again, from a very practical perspective, the identity element is a special element with a very special behaviour: the identity element is such that, if the iterable is not empty, having the identity element or not should be exactly the same thing. In other words, when in the presence of other values, the identity element should have no effect at all.

For example, if we are multiplying a list of numbers, what is the identity element that we should feed reduce with? What is the number that, when multiplied by some other numbers, does exactly nothing? It is 1:

>>> from functools import reduce
>>> reduce(operator.mul, range(4, 10))
60480
>>> reduce(operator.mul, range(4, 10), 1)
60480

For the built-in reductions, you can generally figure out what the identity element is by trying to call the reduction with an empty iterable:

>>> sum([])
0
>>> import math
>>> math.prod([])
1
>>> all([])
True
>>> any([])
False
>>> max([])
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: max() arg is an empty sequence

max and min are interesting reductions because, from the mathematical point of view, they have suitable identity elements:

• for max, the identity element is -∞; and
• for min, the identity element is .

Why is that? Again, because these are the values that will not impact the final result when mixed in with other numbers.

Take a look at the following excerpt from my session:

>>> max(float("-inf"), 10)
10
>>> max(float("-inf"), -132515632534250)
-132515632534250
>>> max(float("-inf"), 67357321)
67357321

These six lines of the session show three instances of how calling max with minus infinity as one of the arguments always returns the other one, because no number is smaller than minus infinity.

However, max and min will throw an error if you call them with empty iterables, even though there is an identity element that you could use.

>>> max([])
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: max() arg is an empty sequence

Maybe they do this so that people don't have to deal with infinities in their programs? I honestly don't know!

## The identity element doesn't always exist

There are some operations that look like sensible reductions but that just don't have an identity element. Even if you skipped the section on “scary” reductions, I showed you a reduction that does not have an identity element. Can you spot it? (Drop a comment below with your guess).

If you have an operation for which you cannot find an identity element, then you are either going down the wrong road – and you really shouldn't use a reduction – or you need to wrap your reduction with an if-statement or a try statement (take a look at this article to help you understand which one to choose).

# Why some people dislike reduce

If reduce is such a powerful tool, why was it moved from the built-ins into functools? More importantly, why do people dislike reduce?

There is some information online about why reduce was moved into functools, but I can only speak about my experience with reduce and how I have seen people around me react to it.

One of the things I have seen is that people look at reduce as if it were a tool that people only use when they are trying to be smart, but I think that is just prejudice against reduce. Sometimes, it may be difficult to draw the line between what is code that is worth having people think about for a bit, versus code that isn't.

Furthermore, sometimes functions like reduce are used in convoluted academic exercises, or in brain-teasers, that are meant just to jog your brain. People then forget those are not indications of how reduce should be used in the wild, and build these bitter feelings for such wonderful tools.

# Examples in code

I looked for usages of reduce in the Python Standard Library and I didn't find many, but I found one usage pattern (in two different places) and I just found it to be really elegant, and that's what I am sharing with you here.

Other than that, even if you are not explicitly using reduce, just remember that functions like sum, math.prod, max, min, all, any, etc, are pervasive in our code and, whether you like it or not, you are using reductions in your own code.

## Reaching inside nested dictionaries

In case you want to take a look at the original pattern, you can find it in the importlib.metadata.EntryPoint.load function, but I'll change it a little bit to make it simpler.

Say you have a series of nested dictionaries:

>>> d = {"one": {2: {"c": {4: 42}}}}

Now, say that you want to access the nested 42 through a series of successive key accesses that you have in a list:

>>> keys = ["one", 2, "c", 4]

How do you reach the inner 42? Well, you can write a loop:

>>> d = {"one": {2: {"c": {4: 42}}}}
>>> val = d
>>> for key in keys:
...     val = val[key]
...
>>> val
42

But we can, once more, compare that for loop with the definition of the reduction:

# def reduce(function, iterable, initial_value):
val = d                 #     result = initial_value
for key in keys:        #     for value in iterable:
val = val[key]      #         result = function(result, value)
val                     #     return result

So we can see the structure is very similar! We just have to figure out what is the correct function to use, and that is dict.get:

>>> reduce(dict.get, keys, d)
42

Isn't this neat?

## Reaching inside nested classes

Similarly, we can use this pattern to programmatically access class attributes that are deeply nested.

Let me define a class with nothing in it:

>>> class C:
...     pass
...

Now, let me create a couple of instances and nest them:

>>> c = C()
>>> c.one = C()
>>> c.one._2 = C()
>>> c.one._2.c = C()
>>> c.one._2.c._4 = 42

If I have the base instance c, and if I have the names of the successive attributes that lead to 42, how do I get there? Well, instead of using dict.get, we can use getattr:

>>> attrs = ["one", "_2", "c", "_4"]
>>> reduce(getattr, attrs, c)
42

# Conclusion

Here's the main takeaway of this Pydon't, for you, on a silver platter:

Reductions are classical techniques that you use frequently, even if you do not realise you are doing so!

This Pydon't showed you that:

• reduce takes an iterable of objects and applies a function successively, to build a single final object;
• reduce was a built-in function in Python 2 and in Python 3 it lives in the functools module;
• reductions can be converted to for loops and back following a very well-defined pattern;
• built-in functions like sum, max, min, any, and all, are reductions;
• a reduction can work with an optional third argument, to initialise the process, and that element is supposed to be the identity element of the function you are using;
• not all functions have identity elements;
• the operator module allows you to access built-in operations, like addition and subtraction, and pass them around your code; and
• reduce can be used to reach programmatically inside nested dictionaries or class attributes.

If you liked this Pydon't be sure to leave a reaction below and share this with your friends and fellow Pythonistas. Also, don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter so you don't miss a single Pydon't!

I hope you learned something new! If you did, consider following the footsteps of the readers who bought me a slice of pizza 🍕. Your small contribution helps me produce this content for free and without spamming you with annoying ads.