Most efficient way to create a list of dictionaries in Python










0















Suppose I have a list of objects and for each of these objects I want to create a dictionary and put all the dictionaries I generated in a list.



What I am doing is the following:



def f(x):
some function f that returns a dictionary given x

list_of_dict =

xlist = [x1, x2, ..., xN]

for x in xlist:
list_of_dict.append(f(x))


I am wondering whether there is a more efficient (faster) way to create a list of dictionaries than the one I am proposing.



Thank you.










share|improve this question






















  • Faster to type in, or faster in execution? Did you time your function? Did it take a perceptually long time? For how many items?

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:07











  • Faster in execution. The xlist contains around 2,000,000 elements, and on top of making the function f more efficient I am wondering whether I can make the list creation faster.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:09






  • 1





    The append loop can be replaced with list_of_dict = [f(x) for x in xlist] but you'll have to time it to see if it's any faster. Without seeing what f(x) does, we cannot reasonably recommend anything. Perhaps cache the result, if you get lots of repeats.

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:12












  • Thank you. The xlist is a list of links, and the function f request and parse an html page with beautifulSoup from a link and create two lists of strings, and then zips them together as a dictionary.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:18







  • 1





    map is usually one of the faster methods to apply a function to each element of a list. So you would do: list_of_dict=map(f(x) for x in xlist)

    – dawg
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:41















0















Suppose I have a list of objects and for each of these objects I want to create a dictionary and put all the dictionaries I generated in a list.



What I am doing is the following:



def f(x):
some function f that returns a dictionary given x

list_of_dict =

xlist = [x1, x2, ..., xN]

for x in xlist:
list_of_dict.append(f(x))


I am wondering whether there is a more efficient (faster) way to create a list of dictionaries than the one I am proposing.



Thank you.










share|improve this question






















  • Faster to type in, or faster in execution? Did you time your function? Did it take a perceptually long time? For how many items?

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:07











  • Faster in execution. The xlist contains around 2,000,000 elements, and on top of making the function f more efficient I am wondering whether I can make the list creation faster.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:09






  • 1





    The append loop can be replaced with list_of_dict = [f(x) for x in xlist] but you'll have to time it to see if it's any faster. Without seeing what f(x) does, we cannot reasonably recommend anything. Perhaps cache the result, if you get lots of repeats.

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:12












  • Thank you. The xlist is a list of links, and the function f request and parse an html page with beautifulSoup from a link and create two lists of strings, and then zips them together as a dictionary.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:18







  • 1





    map is usually one of the faster methods to apply a function to each element of a list. So you would do: list_of_dict=map(f(x) for x in xlist)

    – dawg
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:41













0












0








0








Suppose I have a list of objects and for each of these objects I want to create a dictionary and put all the dictionaries I generated in a list.



What I am doing is the following:



def f(x):
some function f that returns a dictionary given x

list_of_dict =

xlist = [x1, x2, ..., xN]

for x in xlist:
list_of_dict.append(f(x))


I am wondering whether there is a more efficient (faster) way to create a list of dictionaries than the one I am proposing.



Thank you.










share|improve this question














Suppose I have a list of objects and for each of these objects I want to create a dictionary and put all the dictionaries I generated in a list.



What I am doing is the following:



def f(x):
some function f that returns a dictionary given x

list_of_dict =

xlist = [x1, x2, ..., xN]

for x in xlist:
list_of_dict.append(f(x))


I am wondering whether there is a more efficient (faster) way to create a list of dictionaries than the one I am proposing.



Thank you.







python list dictionary






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 11 '18 at 0:02









mgiommgiom

226




226












  • Faster to type in, or faster in execution? Did you time your function? Did it take a perceptually long time? For how many items?

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:07











  • Faster in execution. The xlist contains around 2,000,000 elements, and on top of making the function f more efficient I am wondering whether I can make the list creation faster.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:09






  • 1





    The append loop can be replaced with list_of_dict = [f(x) for x in xlist] but you'll have to time it to see if it's any faster. Without seeing what f(x) does, we cannot reasonably recommend anything. Perhaps cache the result, if you get lots of repeats.

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:12












  • Thank you. The xlist is a list of links, and the function f request and parse an html page with beautifulSoup from a link and create two lists of strings, and then zips them together as a dictionary.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:18







  • 1





    map is usually one of the faster methods to apply a function to each element of a list. So you would do: list_of_dict=map(f(x) for x in xlist)

    – dawg
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:41

















  • Faster to type in, or faster in execution? Did you time your function? Did it take a perceptually long time? For how many items?

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:07











  • Faster in execution. The xlist contains around 2,000,000 elements, and on top of making the function f more efficient I am wondering whether I can make the list creation faster.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:09






  • 1





    The append loop can be replaced with list_of_dict = [f(x) for x in xlist] but you'll have to time it to see if it's any faster. Without seeing what f(x) does, we cannot reasonably recommend anything. Perhaps cache the result, if you get lots of repeats.

    – usr2564301
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:12












  • Thank you. The xlist is a list of links, and the function f request and parse an html page with beautifulSoup from a link and create two lists of strings, and then zips them together as a dictionary.

    – mgiom
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:18







  • 1





    map is usually one of the faster methods to apply a function to each element of a list. So you would do: list_of_dict=map(f(x) for x in xlist)

    – dawg
    Nov 11 '18 at 0:41
















Faster to type in, or faster in execution? Did you time your function? Did it take a perceptually long time? For how many items?

– usr2564301
Nov 11 '18 at 0:07





Faster to type in, or faster in execution? Did you time your function? Did it take a perceptually long time? For how many items?

– usr2564301
Nov 11 '18 at 0:07













Faster in execution. The xlist contains around 2,000,000 elements, and on top of making the function f more efficient I am wondering whether I can make the list creation faster.

– mgiom
Nov 11 '18 at 0:09





Faster in execution. The xlist contains around 2,000,000 elements, and on top of making the function f more efficient I am wondering whether I can make the list creation faster.

– mgiom
Nov 11 '18 at 0:09




1




1





The append loop can be replaced with list_of_dict = [f(x) for x in xlist] but you'll have to time it to see if it's any faster. Without seeing what f(x) does, we cannot reasonably recommend anything. Perhaps cache the result, if you get lots of repeats.

– usr2564301
Nov 11 '18 at 0:12






The append loop can be replaced with list_of_dict = [f(x) for x in xlist] but you'll have to time it to see if it's any faster. Without seeing what f(x) does, we cannot reasonably recommend anything. Perhaps cache the result, if you get lots of repeats.

– usr2564301
Nov 11 '18 at 0:12














Thank you. The xlist is a list of links, and the function f request and parse an html page with beautifulSoup from a link and create two lists of strings, and then zips them together as a dictionary.

– mgiom
Nov 11 '18 at 0:18






Thank you. The xlist is a list of links, and the function f request and parse an html page with beautifulSoup from a link and create two lists of strings, and then zips them together as a dictionary.

– mgiom
Nov 11 '18 at 0:18





1




1





map is usually one of the faster methods to apply a function to each element of a list. So you would do: list_of_dict=map(f(x) for x in xlist)

– dawg
Nov 11 '18 at 0:41





map is usually one of the faster methods to apply a function to each element of a list. So you would do: list_of_dict=map(f(x) for x in xlist)

– dawg
Nov 11 '18 at 0:41












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














Since you are dealing with HTTP requests (which is not obvious from your question), the rest of the answer is irrelevant: communications will dominate the computations by a sheer margin. I'll leave the answer here, anyway.



The original approach seems to be the slowest:



In [20]: %%timeit 
...: list_of_dict =
...: for x in xlist:
...: list_of_dict.append(f(x))
...:
13.5 µs ± 39.3 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


Mapping is the best way to go:



In [21]: %timeit list(map(f,xlist)) 
8.45 µs ± 17 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


List comprehension is somewhere in the middle:



In [22]: %timeit [f(x) for x in xlist] 
10.2 µs ± 22.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)





share|improve this answer
































    -1














    Since you mentioned in the comments that you want faster execution overall, maybe async the requests?



    Check out this example adapted from this blog post: http://skipperkongen.dk/2016/09/09/easy-parallel-http-requests-with-python-and-asyncio/



    import asyncio
    import requests

    async def main():
    xlist = [...]
    list_of_dict =
    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    futures = [
    loop.run_in_executor(
    None,
    requests.get,
    i
    )
    for i in xlist
    ]
    for response in await asyncio.gather(*futures):
    respons_dict = your_parser(response) # Your parsing to dict from before
    list_of_dict.append(response_dict)
    return list_of_dict

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.run_until_complete(main())


    I think this can help you with implement parallelism. Just note that you should be sure you aren't flooding somebody with requests that they wouldn't appreciate.






    share|improve this answer























    • Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

      – Chiheb Nexus
      Nov 11 '18 at 1:45











    • In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

      – DYZ
      Nov 11 '18 at 2:47











    • In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

      – Charles Landau
      Nov 11 '18 at 2:48











    • The OP never mentions requests in their post.

      – DYZ
      Nov 11 '18 at 2:51






    • 1





      Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

      – Charles Landau
      Nov 11 '18 at 2:52










    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53244627%2fmost-efficient-way-to-create-a-list-of-dictionaries-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    Since you are dealing with HTTP requests (which is not obvious from your question), the rest of the answer is irrelevant: communications will dominate the computations by a sheer margin. I'll leave the answer here, anyway.



    The original approach seems to be the slowest:



    In [20]: %%timeit 
    ...: list_of_dict =
    ...: for x in xlist:
    ...: list_of_dict.append(f(x))
    ...:
    13.5 µs ± 39.3 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


    Mapping is the best way to go:



    In [21]: %timeit list(map(f,xlist)) 
    8.45 µs ± 17 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


    List comprehension is somewhere in the middle:



    In [22]: %timeit [f(x) for x in xlist] 
    10.2 µs ± 22.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)





    share|improve this answer





























      2














      Since you are dealing with HTTP requests (which is not obvious from your question), the rest of the answer is irrelevant: communications will dominate the computations by a sheer margin. I'll leave the answer here, anyway.



      The original approach seems to be the slowest:



      In [20]: %%timeit 
      ...: list_of_dict =
      ...: for x in xlist:
      ...: list_of_dict.append(f(x))
      ...:
      13.5 µs ± 39.3 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


      Mapping is the best way to go:



      In [21]: %timeit list(map(f,xlist)) 
      8.45 µs ± 17 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


      List comprehension is somewhere in the middle:



      In [22]: %timeit [f(x) for x in xlist] 
      10.2 µs ± 22.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)





      share|improve this answer



























        2












        2








        2







        Since you are dealing with HTTP requests (which is not obvious from your question), the rest of the answer is irrelevant: communications will dominate the computations by a sheer margin. I'll leave the answer here, anyway.



        The original approach seems to be the slowest:



        In [20]: %%timeit 
        ...: list_of_dict =
        ...: for x in xlist:
        ...: list_of_dict.append(f(x))
        ...:
        13.5 µs ± 39.3 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


        Mapping is the best way to go:



        In [21]: %timeit list(map(f,xlist)) 
        8.45 µs ± 17 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


        List comprehension is somewhere in the middle:



        In [22]: %timeit [f(x) for x in xlist] 
        10.2 µs ± 22.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)





        share|improve this answer















        Since you are dealing with HTTP requests (which is not obvious from your question), the rest of the answer is irrelevant: communications will dominate the computations by a sheer margin. I'll leave the answer here, anyway.



        The original approach seems to be the slowest:



        In [20]: %%timeit 
        ...: list_of_dict =
        ...: for x in xlist:
        ...: list_of_dict.append(f(x))
        ...:
        13.5 µs ± 39.3 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


        Mapping is the best way to go:



        In [21]: %timeit list(map(f,xlist)) 
        8.45 µs ± 17 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)


        List comprehension is somewhere in the middle:



        In [22]: %timeit [f(x) for x in xlist] 
        10.2 µs ± 22.8 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 11 '18 at 2:57

























        answered Nov 11 '18 at 2:45









        DYZDYZ

        26.1k61948




        26.1k61948























            -1














            Since you mentioned in the comments that you want faster execution overall, maybe async the requests?



            Check out this example adapted from this blog post: http://skipperkongen.dk/2016/09/09/easy-parallel-http-requests-with-python-and-asyncio/



            import asyncio
            import requests

            async def main():
            xlist = [...]
            list_of_dict =
            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            futures = [
            loop.run_in_executor(
            None,
            requests.get,
            i
            )
            for i in xlist
            ]
            for response in await asyncio.gather(*futures):
            respons_dict = your_parser(response) # Your parsing to dict from before
            list_of_dict.append(response_dict)
            return list_of_dict

            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            loop.run_until_complete(main())


            I think this can help you with implement parallelism. Just note that you should be sure you aren't flooding somebody with requests that they wouldn't appreciate.






            share|improve this answer























            • Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

              – Chiheb Nexus
              Nov 11 '18 at 1:45











            • In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:47











            • In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:48











            • The OP never mentions requests in their post.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:51






            • 1





              Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:52















            -1














            Since you mentioned in the comments that you want faster execution overall, maybe async the requests?



            Check out this example adapted from this blog post: http://skipperkongen.dk/2016/09/09/easy-parallel-http-requests-with-python-and-asyncio/



            import asyncio
            import requests

            async def main():
            xlist = [...]
            list_of_dict =
            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            futures = [
            loop.run_in_executor(
            None,
            requests.get,
            i
            )
            for i in xlist
            ]
            for response in await asyncio.gather(*futures):
            respons_dict = your_parser(response) # Your parsing to dict from before
            list_of_dict.append(response_dict)
            return list_of_dict

            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            loop.run_until_complete(main())


            I think this can help you with implement parallelism. Just note that you should be sure you aren't flooding somebody with requests that they wouldn't appreciate.






            share|improve this answer























            • Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

              – Chiheb Nexus
              Nov 11 '18 at 1:45











            • In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:47











            • In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:48











            • The OP never mentions requests in their post.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:51






            • 1





              Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:52













            -1












            -1








            -1







            Since you mentioned in the comments that you want faster execution overall, maybe async the requests?



            Check out this example adapted from this blog post: http://skipperkongen.dk/2016/09/09/easy-parallel-http-requests-with-python-and-asyncio/



            import asyncio
            import requests

            async def main():
            xlist = [...]
            list_of_dict =
            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            futures = [
            loop.run_in_executor(
            None,
            requests.get,
            i
            )
            for i in xlist
            ]
            for response in await asyncio.gather(*futures):
            respons_dict = your_parser(response) # Your parsing to dict from before
            list_of_dict.append(response_dict)
            return list_of_dict

            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            loop.run_until_complete(main())


            I think this can help you with implement parallelism. Just note that you should be sure you aren't flooding somebody with requests that they wouldn't appreciate.






            share|improve this answer













            Since you mentioned in the comments that you want faster execution overall, maybe async the requests?



            Check out this example adapted from this blog post: http://skipperkongen.dk/2016/09/09/easy-parallel-http-requests-with-python-and-asyncio/



            import asyncio
            import requests

            async def main():
            xlist = [...]
            list_of_dict =
            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            futures = [
            loop.run_in_executor(
            None,
            requests.get,
            i
            )
            for i in xlist
            ]
            for response in await asyncio.gather(*futures):
            respons_dict = your_parser(response) # Your parsing to dict from before
            list_of_dict.append(response_dict)
            return list_of_dict

            loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
            loop.run_until_complete(main())


            I think this can help you with implement parallelism. Just note that you should be sure you aren't flooding somebody with requests that they wouldn't appreciate.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Nov 11 '18 at 0:47









            Charles LandauCharles Landau

            2,1851215




            2,1851215












            • Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

              – Chiheb Nexus
              Nov 11 '18 at 1:45











            • In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:47











            • In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:48











            • The OP never mentions requests in their post.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:51






            • 1





              Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:52

















            • Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

              – Chiheb Nexus
              Nov 11 '18 at 1:45











            • In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:47











            • In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:48











            • The OP never mentions requests in their post.

              – DYZ
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:51






            • 1





              Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

              – Charles Landau
              Nov 11 '18 at 2:52
















            Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

            – Chiheb Nexus
            Nov 11 '18 at 1:45





            Did this answer responds to the OP's question ?

            – Chiheb Nexus
            Nov 11 '18 at 1:45













            In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

            – DYZ
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:47





            In general, async does not speed up computational tasks.

            – DYZ
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:47













            In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

            – Charles Landau
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:48





            In the example above I'm using it to make the requests in parallel, not the computation.

            – Charles Landau
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:48













            The OP never mentions requests in their post.

            – DYZ
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:51





            The OP never mentions requests in their post.

            – DYZ
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:51




            1




            1





            Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

            – Charles Landau
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:52





            Correct, they mentioned it in the comments @DYZ

            – Charles Landau
            Nov 11 '18 at 2:52

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53244627%2fmost-efficient-way-to-create-a-list-of-dictionaries-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

            Edmonton

            Crossroads (UK TV series)