I expected array.array to be faster than lists, as arrays seem to be unboxed.

However, I get the following result:

In [1]: import array

In [2]: L = list(range(100000000))

In [3]: A = array.array('l', range(100000000))

In [4]: %timeit sum(L)
1 loop, best of 3: 667 ms per loop

In [5]: %timeit sum(A)
1 loop, best of 3: 1.41 s per loop

In [6]: %timeit sum(L)
1 loop, best of 3: 627 ms per loop

In [7]: %timeit sum(A)
1 loop, best of 3: 1.39 s per loop

What could be the cause of such a difference?

The storage is “unboxed”, but every time you access an element Python has to “box” it (embed it in a regular Python object) in order to do anything with it. For example, your sum(A) iterates over the array, and boxes each integer, one at a time, in a regular Python int object. That costs time. In your sum(L), all the boxing was done at the time the list was created.

So, in the end, an array is generally slower, but requires substantially less memory.

Here’s the relevant code from a recent version of Python 3, but the same basic ideas apply to all CPython implementations since Python was first released.

Here’s the code to access a list item:

PyObject *
PyList_GetItem(PyObject *op, Py_ssize_t i)
{
    /* error checking omitted */
    return ((PyListObject *)op) -> ob_item[i];
}

There’s very little to it: somelist[i] just returns the i‘th object in the list (and all Python objects in CPython are pointers to a struct whose initial segment conforms to the layout of a struct PyObject).

And here’s the __getitem__ implementation for an array with type code l:

static PyObject *
l_getitem(arrayobject *ap, Py_ssize_t i)
{
    return PyLong_FromLong(((long *)ap->ob_item)[i]);
}

The raw memory is treated as a vector of platform-native C long integers; the i‘th C long is read up; and then PyLong_FromLong() is called to wrap (“box”) the native C long in a Python long object (which, in Python 3, which eliminates Python 2’s distinction between int and long, is actually shown as type int).

This boxing has to allocate new memory for a Python int object, and spray the native C long‘s bits into it. In the context of the original example, this object’s lifetime is very brief (just long enough for sum() to add the contents into a running total), and then more time is required to deallocate the new int object.

This is where the speed difference comes from, always has come from, and always will come from in the CPython implementation.

To add to Tim Peters’ excellent answer, arrays implement the buffer protocol, while lists do not. This means that, if you are writing a C extension (or the moral equivalent, such as writing a Cython module), then you can access and work with the elements of an array much faster than anything Python can do. This will give you considerable speed improvements, possibly well over an order of magnitude. However, it has a number of downsides:

1. You are now in the business of writing C instead of Python. Cython is one way to ameliorate this, but it does not eliminate many fundamental differences between the languages; you need to be familiar with C semantics and understand what it is doing.
2. PyPy’s C API works to some extent, but isn’t very fast. If you are targeting PyPy, you should probably just write simple code with regular lists, and then let the JITter optimize it for you.
3. C extensions are harder to distribute than pure Python code because they need to be compiled. Compilation tends to be architecture and operating-system dependent, so you will need to ensure you are compiling for your target platform.

Going straight to C extensions may be using a sledgehammer to swat a fly, depending on your use case. You should first investigate NumPy and see if it is powerful enough to do whatever math you’re trying to do. It will also be much faster than native Python, if used correctly.

Tim Peters answered why this is slow, but let’s see how to improve it.

Sticking to your example of sum(range(...)) (factor 10 smaller than your example to fit into memory here):

import numpy
import array
L = list(range(10**7))
A = array.array('l', L)
N = numpy.array(L)

%timeit sum(L)
10 loops, best of 3: 101 ms per loop

%timeit sum(A)
1 loop, best of 3: 237 ms per loop

%timeit sum(N)
1 loop, best of 3: 743 ms per loop

This way also numpy needs to box/unbox, which has additional overhead. To make it fast one has to stay within the numpy c code:

%timeit N.sum()
100 loops, best of 3: 6.27 ms per loop

So from the list solution to the numpy version this is a factor 16 in runtime.

Let’s also check how long creating those data structures takes

%timeit list(range(10**7))
1 loop, best of 3: 283 ms per loop

%timeit array.array('l', range(10**7))
1 loop, best of 3: 884 ms per loop

%timeit numpy.array(range(10**7))
1 loop, best of 3: 1.49 s per loop

%timeit numpy.arange(10**7)
10 loops, best of 3: 21.7 ms per loop

Clear winner: Numpy

Also note that creating the data structure takes about as much time as summing, if not more. Allocating memory is slow.

Memory usage of those:

sys.getsizeof(L)
90000112
sys.getsizeof(A)
81940352
sys.getsizeof(N)
80000096

So these take 8 bytes per number with varying overhead. For the range we use 32bit ints are sufficient, so we can safe some memory.

N=numpy.arange(10**7, dtype=numpy.int32)

sys.getsizeof(N)
40000096

%timeit N.sum()
100 loops, best of 3: 8.35 ms per loop

But it turns out that adding 64bit ints is faster than 32bit ints on my machine, so this is only worth it if you are limited by memory/bandwidth.

please note that 100000000 equals to 10^8 not to 10^7, and my results are as the folowwing:

100000000 == 10**8

# my test results on a Linux virtual machine:
#<L = list(range(100000000))> Time: 0:00:03.263585
#<A = array.array('l', range(100000000))> Time: 0:00:16.728709
#<L = list(range(10**8))> Time: 0:00:03.119379
#<A = array.array('l', range(10**8))> Time: 0:00:18.042187
#<A = array.array('l', L)> Time: 0:00:07.524478
#<sum(L)> Time: 0:00:01.640671
#<np.sum(L)> Time: 0:00:20.762153