在这样简单的矢量化操作上，您不能指望numba胜过numpy.另外，由于numba函数包括外部函数调用的开销，因此您的比较也不完全公平.如果对一个更大的数组求和，您将看到两个函数的性能收敛，并且您看到的只是在非常快速的操作上的开销:

You cannot expect numba to outperform numpy on such a simple vectorized operation. Also your comparison isn't exactly fair since the numba function includes the cost of the outside function call. If you sum a larger array, you'll see that the performance of the two converge and what you are seeing is just overhead on a very fast operation:

import numpy as np
import numba as nb

@nb.njit
def asd(x,y):
    return x+y

def asd2(x, y):
    return x + y

u=np.random.random(10000)
w=np.random.random(10000)

%timeit asd(u,w)
%timeit asd2(u,w)

The slowest run took 17796.43 times longer than the fastest. This could mean 
that an intermediate result is being cached.
100000 loops, best of 3: 6.06 µs per loop

The slowest run took 29.94 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that 
an intermediate result is being cached.
100000 loops, best of 3: 5.11 µs per loop

就并行功能而言，对于此简单操作，可以使用nb.vectorize:

As far as parallel functionality, for this simple operation, you can use nb.vectorize:

@nb.vectorize([nb.float64(nb.float64, nb.float64)], target='parallel')
def asd3(x, y):
    return x + y

u=np.random.random((100000, 10))
w=np.random.random((100000, 10))

%timeit asd(u,w)
%timeit asd2(u,w)
%timeit asd3(u,w)

但是同样，如果您在小型数组上进行操作，将会看到线程分派的开销.对于上面的数组大小，我看到并行使我的速度提高了2倍.

But again, if you operate on small arrays, you are going to be seeing the overhead of thread dispatch. For the array sizes above, I see the parallel giving me a 2x speedup.

numba真正发挥作用的地方是使用广播难以执行numpy中的操作，或者当操作会导致大量临时中间数组分配时.

Where numba really shines is doing operations that are difficult to do in numpy using broadcasting, or when operations would result in a lot of temporary intermediate array allocations.