ruby-core@ruby-lang.org archive (unofficial mirror)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org>
To: ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org
Cc: "AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov)" <noreply@ruby-lang.org>
Subject: [ruby-core:116941] [Ruby master Bug#20301] `Set#add?` does two hash look-ups
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:42:35 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <redmine.issue-20301.20240226024235.51722@ruby-lang.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: redmine.issue-20301.20240226024235.51722@ruby-lang.org

Issue #20301 has been reported by AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov).

----------------------------------------
Bug #20301: `Set#add?` does two hash look-ups
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20301

* Author: AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov)
* Status: Open
* Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
A common usage of `Set`s is to keep track of seen objects, and do something different whenever an object is seen for the first time, e.g.:

```ruby
SEEN_VALUES = Set.new
	
def receive_value(value)
	if SEEN_VALUES.add?(value)
		puts "Saw #{value} for the first time."
	else
		puts "Already seen #{value}, ignoring."
	end
end

receive_value(1) # Saw 1 for the first time.
receive_value(2) # Saw 2 for the first time.
receive_value(3) # Saw 3 for the first time.
receive_value(1) # Already seen 1, ignoring.
```

Readers might reasonably assume that `add?` is only looking up into the set a single time, but it's actually doing two separate look-ups! ([source](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/c976cb5/lib/set.rb#L517-L525))

```rb
class Set
  def add?(o
    # 1. `include?(o)` looks up into `@hash`
    # 2. if the value isn't there, `add(o)` does a second look-up into `@hash`
    add(o) unless include?(o)
  end
end
```

This gets especially expensive if the values are large hash/arrays/objects, whose `#hash` is expensive to compute.

We can optimize this if it was possible to set a value in hash, *and* retrieve the value that was already there, in a single go. I propose adding `Hash#update_value` to do exactly that. If that existed, we can re-implement `#add?` as:

```rb
class Set
  def add?(o)
    # Only requires a single look-up into `@hash`!
    self unless @hash.update_value(o, true)
  end
```

Here's a PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/10093

How much of a benefit this has depends on two things:

1. How much `#hash` is called, which depends on how many new objects are added to the set.
    * If every object is new, then `#hash` is called twice on every `#add?`. This is where this improvement makes the biggest (2x!) change.
    * If every object has already been seen, then `#hash` was never being called twice before anyway, so there would be no improvement
    * Every other case lies somewhere in between those two.
2. How slow `#hash` is to compute for the key
    * If the hash is slow to compute, this change will make a bigger improvement
    * If the hash value is fast to compute, then it won't matter as much. Even if we called it half as much, it's a minority of the total time, so it won't have much net impact.

Here is a summary of the benchmark results:

|                           | All objects are new | All objects are preexisting |
|---------------------------|-------:|------:|
| objects with slow `#hash` | 100.0% | ~0.0% |
| objects with fast `#hash` |  24.5% |  4.6% |





-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
 ______________________________________________
 ruby-core mailing list -- ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org
 To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-core-leave@ml.ruby-lang.org
 ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/

       reply	other threads:[~2024-02-26  2:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-26  2:42 AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov) via ruby-core [this message]
2024-02-26 15:31 ` [ruby-core:116952] [Ruby master Bug#20301] `Set#add?` does two hash look-ups Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) via ruby-core
2024-02-26 15:42 ` [ruby-core:116955] " Eregon (Benoit Daloze) via ruby-core
2024-02-26 17:37 ` [ruby-core:116959] " AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov) via ruby-core
2024-03-14  5:44 ` [ruby-core:117138] " shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) via ruby-core
2024-03-14  6:41 ` [ruby-core:117141] " nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) via ruby-core
2024-03-14  7:15 ` [ruby-core:117142] " shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) via ruby-core
2024-03-14 15:04 ` [ruby-core:117177] " Eregon (Benoit Daloze) via ruby-core
2024-03-15  0:10 ` [ruby-core:117190] " shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) via ruby-core
2024-03-15  1:34 ` [ruby-core:117192] " AMomchilov (Alexander Momchilov) via ruby-core

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=redmine.issue-20301.20240226024235.51722@ruby-lang.org \
    --to=ruby-core@ruby-lang.org \
    --cc=noreply@ruby-lang.org \
    --cc=ruby-core@ml.ruby-lang.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).