这是另一个选项，对于长列表，比len(set(x))==1快(使用短路)

def constantList(x):
    return x and [x[0]]*len(x) == x

def allTheSame(i):
    j = itertools.groupby(i)
    for k in j: break
    for k in j: return False
    return True

适用于Python 2.4，它没有“all”。

比使用set()处理序列(而不是可迭代对象)更快的解决方案是简单地计算第一个元素。这假设列表是非空的(但这是微不足道的检查，并决定什么结果应该在一个空列表)

x.count(x[0]) == len(x)

一些简单的基准:

>>> timeit.timeit('len(set(s1))<=1', 's1=[1]*5000', number=10000)
1.4383411407470703
>>> timeit.timeit('len(set(s1))<=1', 's1=[1]*4999+[2]', number=10000)
1.4765670299530029
>>> timeit.timeit('s1.count(s1[0])==len(s1)', 's1=[1]*5000', number=10000)
0.26274609565734863
>>> timeit.timeit('s1.count(s1[0])==len(s1)', 's1=[1]*4999+[2]', number=10000)
0.25654196739196777

也许我低估了问题的严重性?检查列表中唯一值的长度。

lzt = [1,1,1,1,1,2]

if (len(set(lzt)) > 1):
    uniform = False
elif (len(set(lzt)) == 1):
    uniform = True
elif (not lzt):
    raise ValueError("List empty, get wrecked")

[编辑:这个答案针对当前投票最多的itertools。Groupby(这是一个很好的答案)稍后回答。

在不重写程序的情况下，最具渐近性能和可读性的方法如下:

all(x==myList[0] for x in myList)

(是的，这甚至适用于空列表!这是因为这是python具有惰性语义的少数情况之一。)

这将在尽可能早的时间失败，因此它是渐近最优的(期望时间大约是O(#惟一)而不是O(N)，但最坏情况时间仍然是O(N))。这是假设你之前没有看过这些数据……

(如果你关心性能，但不太关心性能，你可以先做通常的标准优化，比如将myList[0]常量从循环中提升出来，并为边缘情况添加笨拙的逻辑，尽管这是python编译器最终可能会学会如何做的事情，因此除非绝对必要，否则不应该这样做，因为它会破坏最小收益的可读性。)

如果你更关心性能，这是上面速度的两倍，但有点啰嗦:

def allEqual(iterable):
    iterator = iter(iterable)
    
    try:
        firstItem = next(iterator)
    except StopIteration:
        return True
        
    for x in iterator:
        if x!=firstItem:
            return False
    return True

如果你更关心性能(但还不足以重写你的程序)，请使用当前投票最多的itertools。它的速度是allEqual的两倍，因为它可能是优化的C代码。(根据文档，它应该(类似于这个答案)没有任何内存开销，因为惰性生成器永远不会被计算到列表中…这可能会让人担心，但伪代码表明，分组的“列表”实际上是惰性生成器。)

如果你更关心性能，请继续阅读…

关于性能的旁注，因为其他答案都在谈论它，因为一些未知的原因:

... if you have seen the data before and are likely using a collection data structure of some sort, and you really care about performance, you can get .isAllEqual() for free O(1) by augmenting your structure with a Counter that is updated with every insert/delete/etc. operation and just checking if it's of the form {something:someCount} i.e. len(counter.keys())==1; alternatively you can keep a Counter on the side in a separate variable. This is provably better than anything else up to constant factor. Perhaps you can also use python's FFI with ctypes with your chosen method, and perhaps with a heuristic (like if it's a sequence with getitem, then checking first element, last element, then elements in-order).

当然，可读性也有好处。

最佳答案

Twitter上有一个不错的帖子，介绍了实现all_equal()函数的各种方法。

给定一个列表输入，最好的提交是:

 t.count(t[0]) == len(t)  

其他方法

下面是线程的结果:

Have groupby() compare adjacent entries. This has an early-out for a mismatch, does not use extra memory, and it runs at C speed. g = itertools.groupby(s) next(g, True) and not next(g, False) Compare two slices offset from one another by one position. This uses extra memory but runs at C speed. s[1:] == s[:-1] Iterator version of slice comparison. It runs at C speed and does not use extra memory; however, the eq calls are expensive. all(map(operator.eq, s, itertools.islice(s, 1, None))) Compare the lowest and highest values. This runs at C speed, doesn't use extra memory, but does cost two inequality tests per datum. min(s) == max(s) # s must be non-empty Build a set. This runs at C speed and uses little extra memory but requires hashability and does not have an early-out. len(set(t))==1. At great cost, this handles NaNs and other objects with exotic equality relations. all(itertools.starmap(eq, itertools.product(s, repeat=2))) Pull out the first element and compare all the others to it, stopping at the first mismatch. Only disadvantage is that this doesn't run at C speed. it = iter(s) a = next(it, None) return all(a == b for b in it) Just count the first element. This is fast, simple, elegant. It runs at C speed, requires no additional memory, uses only equality tests, and makes only a single pass over the data. t.count(t[0]) == len(t)