PEP 8规定:
导入总是放在文件的顶部，就在任何模块注释和文档字符串之后，在模块全局变量和常量之前。
然而，如果我导入的类/方法/函数只在很少的情况下使用，那么在需要时进行导入肯定会更有效吗?
这不是:
class SomeClass(object):
def not_often_called(self)
from datetime import datetime
self.datetime = datetime.now()
比这更有效率?
from datetime import datetime
class SomeClass(object):
def not_often_called(self)
self.datetime = datetime.now()
当前回答
Module initialization only occurs once - on the first import. If the module in question is from the standard library, then you will likely import it from other modules in your program as well. For a module as prevalent as datetime, it is also likely a dependency for a slew of other standard libraries. The import statement would cost very little then since the module intialization would have happened already. All it is doing at this point is binding the existing module object to the local scope.
将这些信息与可读性参数结合起来，我会说import语句最好在模块范围内。
其他回答
以下是对这个问题的最新答案总结 而且 相关的 的问题。
PEP 8 recommends putting imports at the top. It's often more convenient to get ImportErrors when you first run your program rather than when your program first calls your function. Putting imports in the function scope can help avoid issues with circular imports. Putting imports in the function scope helps keep maintain a clean module namespace, so that it does not appear among tab-completion suggestions. Start-up time: imports in a function won't run until (if) that function is called. Might get significant with heavy-weight libraries. Even though import statements are super fast on subsequent runs, they still incur a speed penalty which can be significant if the function is trivial but frequently in use. Imports under the __name__ == "__main__" guard seem very reasonable. Refactoring might be easier if the imports are located in the function where they're used (facilitates moving it to another module). It can also be argued that this is good for readability. However, most would argue the contrary, i.e. Imports at the top enhance readability, since you can see all your dependencies at a glance. It seems unclear if dynamic or conditional imports favour one style over another.
可读性
除了启动性能外，本地化import语句还需要考虑可读性。例如，在我目前的第一个python项目中使用python行号1283到1296:
listdata.append(['tk font version', font_version])
listdata.append(['Gtk version', str(Gtk.get_major_version())+"."+
str(Gtk.get_minor_version())+"."+
str(Gtk.get_micro_version())])
import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
xmltree = ET.parse('/usr/share/gnome/gnome-version.xml')
xmlroot = xmltree.getroot()
result = []
for child in xmlroot:
result.append(child.text)
listdata.append(['Gnome version', result[0]+"."+result[1]+"."+
result[2]+" "+result[3]])
如果import语句在文件的顶部，我将不得不向上滚动很长一段距离，或按Home键，以找出ET是什么。然后我将不得不返回到第1283行继续阅读代码。
实际上，即使import语句像许多人那样位于函数(或类)的顶部，也需要向上和向下分页。
很少会显示Gnome版本号，因此在文件顶部导入会引入不必要的启动延迟。
当函数被调用0次或1次时，第一种变体确实比第二种更有效。然而，对于第二次和后续调用，“导入每个调用”方法实际上效率较低。请参阅此链接，了解一种通过“惰性导入”将两种方法的优点结合起来的惰性加载技术。
但除了效率之外，还有其他原因可以解释为什么你会更喜欢其中一种。一种方法是让阅读代码的人更清楚地了解这个模块所具有的依赖关系。它们也有非常不同的失败特征——如果没有“datetime”模块，第一个将在加载时失败，而第二个直到方法被调用才会失败。
补充说明:在IronPython中，导入可能比在CPython中要昂贵一些，因为代码基本上是在导入时被编译的。
除了已经给出的优秀答案之外，值得注意的是导入的位置不仅仅是风格的问题。有时，模块具有需要首先导入或初始化的隐式依赖项，而顶层导入可能会导致违反所需的执行顺序。
这个问题经常出现在Apache Spark的Python API中，在导入任何pyspark包或模块之前，你需要初始化SparkContext。最好将pyspark导入放在保证SparkContext可用的范围内。
我很惊讶没有看到重复负载检查的实际成本数字，尽管有很多很好的解释。
如果你在顶部导入，不管发生什么，你都要加载命中。这非常小，但通常是毫秒级，而不是纳秒级。
If you import within a function(s), then you only take the hit for loading if and when one of those functions is first called. As many have pointed out, if that doesn't happen at all, you save the load time. But if the function(s) get called a lot, you take a repeated though much smaller hit (for checking that it has been loaded; not for actually re-loading). On the other hand, as @aaronasterling pointed out you also save a little because importing within a function lets the function use slightly-faster local variable lookups to identify the name later (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/477096/python-import-coding-style/4789963#4789963).
下面是一个简单测试的结果，该测试从函数内部导入了一些内容。报告的时间(在2.3 GHz Intel Core i7上的Python 2.7.14中)如下所示(第2个调用比后面的调用多似乎是一致的，尽管我不知道为什么)。
0 foo: 14429.0924 µs
1 foo: 63.8962 µs
2 foo: 10.0136 µs
3 foo: 7.1526 µs
4 foo: 7.8678 µs
0 bar: 9.0599 µs
1 bar: 6.9141 µs
2 bar: 7.1526 µs
3 bar: 7.8678 µs
4 bar: 7.1526 µs
代码:
from __future__ import print_function
from time import time
def foo():
import collections
import re
import string
import math
import subprocess
return
def bar():
import collections
import re
import string
import math
import subprocess
return
t0 = time()
for i in xrange(5):
foo()
t1 = time()
print(" %2d foo: %12.4f \xC2\xB5s" % (i, (t1-t0)*1E6))
t0 = t1
for i in xrange(5):
bar()
t1 = time()
print(" %2d bar: %12.4f \xC2\xB5s" % (i, (t1-t0)*1E6))
t0 = t1
