Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Add faster while loop implementations and new Time#+ benchmark #155

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
bawNg wants to merge 2 commits into fastruby:main
base: main
Choose a base branch
Loading
from bawNg:master

Conversation

@bawNg
Copy link

@bawNg bawNg commented May 2, 2018

No description provided.

bawNg added 2 commits May 2, 2018 16:24
Reduced benchmark overhead
Ruby 2.5 reduces each_with_index overhead

def faster
index = 0
size = ARRAY.size
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be fastest and current fastest should be removed, as they will always will be around the same. Constant lookup is not slower than local variable in terms of code execution. It's not even micro-optimization it some sort of pseudo-scientific nano-optimization :D

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In fact whole benchmark seems a bit wrong to me. It compares oranges to potatoes. It should test each* vs while not different memoization tricks:

require "benchmark/ips"
ARRAY = [*1..100]
def fastest
 index = 0
 size = ARRAY.size
 while index < size
 ARRAY[index] + index
 index += 1
 end
 ARRAY
end
def faster
 index = 0
 ARRAY.each do |number|
 number + index
 index += 1
 end
 ARRAY
end
def slow
 ARRAY.each_with_index { |number, index| number + index }
end
Benchmark.ips do |x|
 x.report("fastest", 'fastest;' * 1000)
 x.report("faster", 'faster;' * 1000)
 x.report("slow", 'slow;' * 1000)
 x.compare!
end

Results will be:

Warming up --------------------------------------
 fastest 37.000 i/100ms
 faster 23.000 i/100ms
 slow 24.000 i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
 fastest 375.210 (± 1.1%) i/s - 1.887k in 5.029639s
 faster 242.769 (± 2.1%) i/s - 1.219k in 5.023745s
 slow 236.484 (± 1.3%) i/s - 1.200k in 5.074932s
Comparison:
 fastest: 375.2 i/s
 faster: 242.8 i/s - 1.55x slower
 slow: 236.5 i/s - 1.59x slower

Copy link
Author

@bawNg bawNg May 2, 2018
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought about removing the fastest micro optimized version but I decided to include it because local variables should be able to be optimized much better than other lookups. The difference may be very small with the current Ruby implementation but benchmarks do consistently show a performance difference in many cases even if it's overkill for most use cases. The Linux benchmarks I ran were up to 12 i/s faster which is 12k calls per second and an average of 19 i/s faster under Windows (constants are 1.04x slower). I'm running these benchmarks with high CPU priority on Windows and real-time scheduling on Linux to maximize consistency.

As for whether the benchmark should be comparing different memoization tricks or not, that may be a good reason to only include one while loop but when comparing a while loop to a native abstraction, it should ideally be written as optimally as possible. Array#each_with_index gets to take advantage of the C stack and avoid all the overhead of any kind of ruby variable when it comes to referencing the array and doing comparisons and increments on the index.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that local variable will be slower on such synthetic tests. But in real world example where payload of iteration is something less stupid it will seek to nothing. And I think the aim of this project is providing somewhat "better practices". If real code suffers from overhead of local var vs constant lookup - i would consider it as ruby issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@ixti ixti ixti requested changes

@sferik sferik Awaiting requested review from sferik

@nateberkopec nateberkopec Awaiting requested review from nateberkopec

@Arcovion Arcovion Awaiting requested review from Arcovion

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /