Why is it so slow when assigning a concatenated string to a variable in python?How to concatenate text from multiple rows into a single text string in SQL server?How do I parse a string to a float or int in Python?Python join: why is it string.join(list) instead of list.join(string)?How to substring a string in Python?Reverse a string in PythonConverting integer to string in Python?How do I concatenate two lists in Python?Does Python have a string 'contains' substring method?How to concatenate string variables in BashHow do I lowercase a string in Python?

Why was the Ancient One so hesitant to teach Dr. Strange the art of sorcery?

Are there variations of the regular runtimes of the Big-O-Notation?

Does the 500 feet falling cap apply per fall, or per turn?

What does it mean with the ask price is below the last price?

What did Rocket give Hawkeye in "Avengers: Endgame"?

How could we transfer large amounts of energy sourced in space to Earth?

Guns in space with bullets that return?

Can 'sudo apt-get remove [write]' destroy my Ubuntu?

51% attack - apparently very easy? refering to CZ's "rollback btc chain" - How to make sure such corruptible scenario can never happen so easily?

Is the schwa sound consistent?

Does Lawful Interception of 4G / the proposed 5G provide a back door for hackers as well?

How can this pool heater gas line be disconnected?

What does this quote in Small Gods refer to?

Understanding basic photoresistor circuit

How old is Captain America at the end of "Avengers: Endgame"?

How did Thanos not realise this had happened at the end of Endgame?

Is a diamond sword feasible?

Is a vertical stabiliser needed for straight line flight in a glider?

We are two immediate neighbors who forged our own powers to form concatenated relationship. Who are we?

International Code of Ethics for order of co-authors in research papers

Ex-manager wants to stay in touch, I don't want to

Why does the Earth follow an elliptical trajectory rather than a parabolic one?

Is it a bad idea to replace pull-up resistors with hard pull-ups?

Was the Highlands Ranch shooting the 115th mass shooting in the US in 2019



Why is it so slow when assigning a concatenated string to a variable in python?


How to concatenate text from multiple rows into a single text string in SQL server?How do I parse a string to a float or int in Python?Python join: why is it string.join(list) instead of list.join(string)?How to substring a string in Python?Reverse a string in PythonConverting integer to string in Python?How do I concatenate two lists in Python?Does Python have a string 'contains' substring method?How to concatenate string variables in BashHow do I lowercase a string in Python?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








7















If it is only concatenation of strings as follows, it finish immediately.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
str2 = str2 + test_str

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Constant processing time



time(sec) => 0.013324975967407227
time(sec) => 0.020363807678222656
time(sec) => 0.009979963302612305
time(sec) => 0.01744699478149414
time(sec) => 0.0227658748626709


Inexplicably, assigning a concatenated string to another variable makes the process slower and slower.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
# str2 = str2 + test_str
# ↓
str2 = str1

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Processing time will be delayed.



time(sec) => 0.36466407775878906
time(sec) => 1.105351209640503
time(sec) => 2.6467738151550293
time(sec) => 5.891657829284668
time(sec) => 9.266698360443115


Both python2 and python3 give the same result.



why?????










share|improve this question







New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 3





    Because you are using a quadratic time algorithm. The interpreter is able to optimize this, but only in some cases. You should not rely on that, and instead, use a linear time algorithm (generally, append to a list then ''.join)

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    2 hours ago












  • As a result of verifying it according to @shadowranger answer, The cause was found. If only string concatenation is used, the ids of str1 and str2 remain the same, but if str1 is assigned to str2, the id of str1 changes each time. In other words, it is slowed by str1 being allocated every time.

    – uma66
    1 hour ago


















7















If it is only concatenation of strings as follows, it finish immediately.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
str2 = str2 + test_str

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Constant processing time



time(sec) => 0.013324975967407227
time(sec) => 0.020363807678222656
time(sec) => 0.009979963302612305
time(sec) => 0.01744699478149414
time(sec) => 0.0227658748626709


Inexplicably, assigning a concatenated string to another variable makes the process slower and slower.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
# str2 = str2 + test_str
# ↓
str2 = str1

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Processing time will be delayed.



time(sec) => 0.36466407775878906
time(sec) => 1.105351209640503
time(sec) => 2.6467738151550293
time(sec) => 5.891657829284668
time(sec) => 9.266698360443115


Both python2 and python3 give the same result.



why?????










share|improve this question







New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 3





    Because you are using a quadratic time algorithm. The interpreter is able to optimize this, but only in some cases. You should not rely on that, and instead, use a linear time algorithm (generally, append to a list then ''.join)

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    2 hours ago












  • As a result of verifying it according to @shadowranger answer, The cause was found. If only string concatenation is used, the ids of str1 and str2 remain the same, but if str1 is assigned to str2, the id of str1 changes each time. In other words, it is slowed by str1 being allocated every time.

    – uma66
    1 hour ago














7












7








7


1






If it is only concatenation of strings as follows, it finish immediately.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
str2 = str2 + test_str

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Constant processing time



time(sec) => 0.013324975967407227
time(sec) => 0.020363807678222656
time(sec) => 0.009979963302612305
time(sec) => 0.01744699478149414
time(sec) => 0.0227658748626709


Inexplicably, assigning a concatenated string to another variable makes the process slower and slower.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
# str2 = str2 + test_str
# ↓
str2 = str1

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Processing time will be delayed.



time(sec) => 0.36466407775878906
time(sec) => 1.105351209640503
time(sec) => 2.6467738151550293
time(sec) => 5.891657829284668
time(sec) => 9.266698360443115


Both python2 and python3 give the same result.



why?????










share|improve this question







New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











If it is only concatenation of strings as follows, it finish immediately.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
str2 = str2 + test_str

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Constant processing time



time(sec) => 0.013324975967407227
time(sec) => 0.020363807678222656
time(sec) => 0.009979963302612305
time(sec) => 0.01744699478149414
time(sec) => 0.0227658748626709


Inexplicably, assigning a concatenated string to another variable makes the process slower and slower.



test_str = "abcdefghijklmn123456789"
str1 = ""
str2 = ""

start = time.time()
for i in range(1, 100001):

str1 = str1 + test_str
# str2 = str2 + test_str
# ↓
str2 = str1

if i % 20000 == 0:
print("time(sec) => ".format(time.time() - start))
start = time.time()


Processing time will be delayed.



time(sec) => 0.36466407775878906
time(sec) => 1.105351209640503
time(sec) => 2.6467738151550293
time(sec) => 5.891657829284668
time(sec) => 9.266698360443115


Both python2 and python3 give the same result.



why?????







python string-concatenation






share|improve this question







New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question







New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 3 hours ago









uma66uma66

362




362




New contributor



uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




uma66 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 3





    Because you are using a quadratic time algorithm. The interpreter is able to optimize this, but only in some cases. You should not rely on that, and instead, use a linear time algorithm (generally, append to a list then ''.join)

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    2 hours ago












  • As a result of verifying it according to @shadowranger answer, The cause was found. If only string concatenation is used, the ids of str1 and str2 remain the same, but if str1 is assigned to str2, the id of str1 changes each time. In other words, it is slowed by str1 being allocated every time.

    – uma66
    1 hour ago













  • 3





    Because you are using a quadratic time algorithm. The interpreter is able to optimize this, but only in some cases. You should not rely on that, and instead, use a linear time algorithm (generally, append to a list then ''.join)

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    2 hours ago












  • As a result of verifying it according to @shadowranger answer, The cause was found. If only string concatenation is used, the ids of str1 and str2 remain the same, but if str1 is assigned to str2, the id of str1 changes each time. In other words, it is slowed by str1 being allocated every time.

    – uma66
    1 hour ago








3




3





Because you are using a quadratic time algorithm. The interpreter is able to optimize this, but only in some cases. You should not rely on that, and instead, use a linear time algorithm (generally, append to a list then ''.join)

– juanpa.arrivillaga
2 hours ago






Because you are using a quadratic time algorithm. The interpreter is able to optimize this, but only in some cases. You should not rely on that, and instead, use a linear time algorithm (generally, append to a list then ''.join)

– juanpa.arrivillaga
2 hours ago














As a result of verifying it according to @shadowranger answer, The cause was found. If only string concatenation is used, the ids of str1 and str2 remain the same, but if str1 is assigned to str2, the id of str1 changes each time. In other words, it is slowed by str1 being allocated every time.

– uma66
1 hour ago






As a result of verifying it according to @shadowranger answer, The cause was found. If only string concatenation is used, the ids of str1 and str2 remain the same, but if str1 is assigned to str2, the id of str1 changes each time. In other words, it is slowed by str1 being allocated every time.

– uma66
1 hour ago













1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















7














In general, the Python language standard makes no guarantees here; in fact, as defined, strings are immutable and what you're doing should bite you either way, as you've written a form of Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm.



But in the first case, as an implementation detail, CPython (the reference interpreter) will help you out, and concatenate a string in place (technically violating the immutability guarantee) under some fairly specific conditions that allow it to adhere to the spirit of the immutability rules. The most important condition is that the string being concatenated must be referenced in only one place (if it wasn't, the other reference would change in place, violating the appearance of str being immutable). By assigning str2 = str1 after each concatenation, you guarantee there are two references when you concatenate, so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings. That means more memory allocation and deallocation, more (and progressively increasing) memory copies, etc.



Note that relying on this optimization is explicitly discouraged in PEP 8, the Python style guide:





  • Code should be written in a way that does not disadvantage other implementations of Python (PyPy, Jython, IronPython, Cython, Psyco, and such).



    For example, do not rely on CPython's efficient implementation of in-place string concatenation for statements in the form a += b or a = a + b. This optimization is fragile even in CPython (it only works for some types) and isn't present at all in implementations that don't use refcounting. In performance sensitive parts of the library, the ''.join() form should be used instead. This will ensure that concatenation occurs in linear time across various implementations.





The note about "only works for some types" is important. This optimization only applies to str; in Python 2 it doesn't work on unicode (even though Python 3's str is based on the implementation of Python 2's unicode), and in Python 3 it doesn't work on bytes (which are similar to Python 2's str under the hood).






share|improve this answer

























  • This was exactly what I suspected.

    – Tom Karzes
    2 hours ago











  • "so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

    – uma66
    2 hours ago












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
);



);






uma66 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f56086479%2fwhy-is-it-so-slow-when-assigning-a-concatenated-string-to-a-variable-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7














In general, the Python language standard makes no guarantees here; in fact, as defined, strings are immutable and what you're doing should bite you either way, as you've written a form of Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm.



But in the first case, as an implementation detail, CPython (the reference interpreter) will help you out, and concatenate a string in place (technically violating the immutability guarantee) under some fairly specific conditions that allow it to adhere to the spirit of the immutability rules. The most important condition is that the string being concatenated must be referenced in only one place (if it wasn't, the other reference would change in place, violating the appearance of str being immutable). By assigning str2 = str1 after each concatenation, you guarantee there are two references when you concatenate, so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings. That means more memory allocation and deallocation, more (and progressively increasing) memory copies, etc.



Note that relying on this optimization is explicitly discouraged in PEP 8, the Python style guide:





  • Code should be written in a way that does not disadvantage other implementations of Python (PyPy, Jython, IronPython, Cython, Psyco, and such).



    For example, do not rely on CPython's efficient implementation of in-place string concatenation for statements in the form a += b or a = a + b. This optimization is fragile even in CPython (it only works for some types) and isn't present at all in implementations that don't use refcounting. In performance sensitive parts of the library, the ''.join() form should be used instead. This will ensure that concatenation occurs in linear time across various implementations.





The note about "only works for some types" is important. This optimization only applies to str; in Python 2 it doesn't work on unicode (even though Python 3's str is based on the implementation of Python 2's unicode), and in Python 3 it doesn't work on bytes (which are similar to Python 2's str under the hood).






share|improve this answer

























  • This was exactly what I suspected.

    – Tom Karzes
    2 hours ago











  • "so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

    – uma66
    2 hours ago
















7














In general, the Python language standard makes no guarantees here; in fact, as defined, strings are immutable and what you're doing should bite you either way, as you've written a form of Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm.



But in the first case, as an implementation detail, CPython (the reference interpreter) will help you out, and concatenate a string in place (technically violating the immutability guarantee) under some fairly specific conditions that allow it to adhere to the spirit of the immutability rules. The most important condition is that the string being concatenated must be referenced in only one place (if it wasn't, the other reference would change in place, violating the appearance of str being immutable). By assigning str2 = str1 after each concatenation, you guarantee there are two references when you concatenate, so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings. That means more memory allocation and deallocation, more (and progressively increasing) memory copies, etc.



Note that relying on this optimization is explicitly discouraged in PEP 8, the Python style guide:





  • Code should be written in a way that does not disadvantage other implementations of Python (PyPy, Jython, IronPython, Cython, Psyco, and such).



    For example, do not rely on CPython's efficient implementation of in-place string concatenation for statements in the form a += b or a = a + b. This optimization is fragile even in CPython (it only works for some types) and isn't present at all in implementations that don't use refcounting. In performance sensitive parts of the library, the ''.join() form should be used instead. This will ensure that concatenation occurs in linear time across various implementations.





The note about "only works for some types" is important. This optimization only applies to str; in Python 2 it doesn't work on unicode (even though Python 3's str is based on the implementation of Python 2's unicode), and in Python 3 it doesn't work on bytes (which are similar to Python 2's str under the hood).






share|improve this answer

























  • This was exactly what I suspected.

    – Tom Karzes
    2 hours ago











  • "so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

    – uma66
    2 hours ago














7












7








7







In general, the Python language standard makes no guarantees here; in fact, as defined, strings are immutable and what you're doing should bite you either way, as you've written a form of Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm.



But in the first case, as an implementation detail, CPython (the reference interpreter) will help you out, and concatenate a string in place (technically violating the immutability guarantee) under some fairly specific conditions that allow it to adhere to the spirit of the immutability rules. The most important condition is that the string being concatenated must be referenced in only one place (if it wasn't, the other reference would change in place, violating the appearance of str being immutable). By assigning str2 = str1 after each concatenation, you guarantee there are two references when you concatenate, so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings. That means more memory allocation and deallocation, more (and progressively increasing) memory copies, etc.



Note that relying on this optimization is explicitly discouraged in PEP 8, the Python style guide:





  • Code should be written in a way that does not disadvantage other implementations of Python (PyPy, Jython, IronPython, Cython, Psyco, and such).



    For example, do not rely on CPython's efficient implementation of in-place string concatenation for statements in the form a += b or a = a + b. This optimization is fragile even in CPython (it only works for some types) and isn't present at all in implementations that don't use refcounting. In performance sensitive parts of the library, the ''.join() form should be used instead. This will ensure that concatenation occurs in linear time across various implementations.





The note about "only works for some types" is important. This optimization only applies to str; in Python 2 it doesn't work on unicode (even though Python 3's str is based on the implementation of Python 2's unicode), and in Python 3 it doesn't work on bytes (which are similar to Python 2's str under the hood).






share|improve this answer















In general, the Python language standard makes no guarantees here; in fact, as defined, strings are immutable and what you're doing should bite you either way, as you've written a form of Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm.



But in the first case, as an implementation detail, CPython (the reference interpreter) will help you out, and concatenate a string in place (technically violating the immutability guarantee) under some fairly specific conditions that allow it to adhere to the spirit of the immutability rules. The most important condition is that the string being concatenated must be referenced in only one place (if it wasn't, the other reference would change in place, violating the appearance of str being immutable). By assigning str2 = str1 after each concatenation, you guarantee there are two references when you concatenate, so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings. That means more memory allocation and deallocation, more (and progressively increasing) memory copies, etc.



Note that relying on this optimization is explicitly discouraged in PEP 8, the Python style guide:





  • Code should be written in a way that does not disadvantage other implementations of Python (PyPy, Jython, IronPython, Cython, Psyco, and such).



    For example, do not rely on CPython's efficient implementation of in-place string concatenation for statements in the form a += b or a = a + b. This optimization is fragile even in CPython (it only works for some types) and isn't present at all in implementations that don't use refcounting. In performance sensitive parts of the library, the ''.join() form should be used instead. This will ensure that concatenation occurs in linear time across various implementations.





The note about "only works for some types" is important. This optimization only applies to str; in Python 2 it doesn't work on unicode (even though Python 3's str is based on the implementation of Python 2's unicode), and in Python 3 it doesn't work on bytes (which are similar to Python 2's str under the hood).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 2 hours ago









ShadowRangerShadowRanger

65.4k664103




65.4k664103












  • This was exactly what I suspected.

    – Tom Karzes
    2 hours ago











  • "so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

    – uma66
    2 hours ago


















  • This was exactly what I suspected.

    – Tom Karzes
    2 hours ago











  • "so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

    – uma66
    2 hours ago

















This was exactly what I suspected.

– Tom Karzes
2 hours ago





This was exactly what I suspected.

– Tom Karzes
2 hours ago













"so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

– uma66
2 hours ago






"so a new str must be made by every concatenation to preserve the apparent immutability of strings." => This was exactly the cause. Thank you!!

– uma66
2 hours ago













uma66 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















uma66 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












uma66 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











uma66 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














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%2f56086479%2fwhy-is-it-so-slow-when-assigning-a-concatenated-string-to-a-variable-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

Log på Navigationsmenu

Wonderful Copenhagen (sang) Eksterne henvisninger | NavigationsmenurSide på frankloesser.comWonderful Copenhagen

Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse