copy.copy vs dict.copy Shallow: Localhost Lab

Intro — what this post promises

Shallow-copy dicts and lists with dict.copy() / list[:] vs copy.copy. This lab reports ops/s on Linux localhost, plus a shared-inner correctness check.

Related links:

• 01shoppercove.comitertools batched vs chunk localhost lab
• 02shoppercove.comexitstack vs nested with localhost lab
• 03shoppercove.comchainmap vs dict merge localhost lab
• 04shoppercove.comipaddress vs string prefix localhost lab
• 05shoppercove.comfractions vs float localhost lab
• 06shoppercove.commath fsum vs sum localhost lab
• 07shoppercove.comxml etree vs json localhost lab
• 08shoppercove.comlogging formatter vs fstring localhost lab

Lab honesty (1 Oct 2026 IST): Python 3.13.5. Affiliates: 0. Differentiates from copy-vs-deepcopy (lab 50) — no deepcopy arm; focus is shallow method vs copy.copy dispatch.

Verdict up front (n=20000 copies of a 200-key dict / 200-elem list): dict.copy ~1890116 ops/s; copy.copy(dict) ~1571728; dict spread ~1804957; list[:] ~4222429; copy.copy(list) ~3346932.

Arms

Seven rounds, p50. Inner mutable shared across keys so we can prove shallowness.

Lab topology

n=20000 · dict_len=200 · list_len=200 · 7 rounds · p50
metric: ops/s = n / p50_s

Script: lab-evidence/126-copy-copy-vs-dict-copy/results/run_lab.py.

Lead table (p50 ops/s)

Typed methods win: dict.copy edged copy.copy; list[:] led list arms.

Shallowness check

Both d.copy() and copy.copy(d) produced new outer objects (is not d) while sharing the nested dict (inner_shared=True for both). Mutating that inner still aliases — that is the shallow contract, not a bug.

When copy.copy still wins

Polymorphic helpers that accept dict or list or user types need copy.copy (or the copy protocol). Hot dict-only paths should call d.copy() and skip the generic dispatch. Lab 50 remains the place for deepcopy cost.

Reading it for SRE work

• Config snapshot before mutate → d.copy() (fastest dict arm here).
• List buffer fork → lst[:].
• Generic util → copy.copy; accept the small tax (~1571728 vs ~1890116).
• Nested mutables → either deepcopy (lab 50) or explicit nested copies — shallow will bite.

Method vs generic dispatch

On this box the gap is real but not dramatic for dicts: method ~1890116 ops/s vs copy.copy ~1571728. Spread landed close to dict.copy (~1804957) — fine for clarity, not a free lunch over .copy(). Lists show a wider slice-vs-copy.copy spread (~4222429 vs ~3346932).

If a profiler points at shallow copies in a hot loop, swap copy.copy(x) for the typed method before reaching for deepcopy or JSON round-trips.

Spread and constructor peers

dict(d) lagged at ~1511895 ops/s behind d.copy() ~1890116. Prefer the method in hot paths; keep constructor copies for readability in cold setup code. Remember: none of these arms isolate nested mutables — lab 50 still owns that comparison.

Pitfalls

• Assuming shallow copy deep-clones nested lists/dicts.
• Using copy.deepcopy “just in case” without measuring (see lab 50).
• Comparing to dict merge that intentionally overrides keys.
• Forgetting user classes need __copy__ for copy.copy.

Reproduce

python3 lab-evidence/126-copy-copy-vs-dict-copy/results/run_lab.py

Evidence: summary.json, summary.txt.

Limits

One Linux box. Builtin dict/list only. Not copy.deepcopy, not third-party containers.

Takeaway

Prefer dict.copy (~1890116 ops/s) and list[:] (~4222429) for typed shallow forks; use copy.copy when the type varies. Inner objects stay shared — measure deepcopy separately when you need isolation.