From: ariel.caplan@mail.yu.edu
To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-core:72525] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11901] Performance Issue with OpenStruct
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:02:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <redmine.journal-55789.20151227160202.6e47ea861aed867f@ruby-lang.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: redmine.issue-11901.20151227153720@ruby-lang.org
Issue #11901 has been updated by Ariel Caplan.
Now, to throw in my own opinion: probably the simplest fix would be to circumvent the `#respond_to?` check if we hit `#method_missing?` already - the check is both unnecessary and inaccurate. So probably we'd want the method defining methods to be its own method, and then have both `#method_missing?` and `#new_ostruct_member` rely on that. Something like:
``` ruby
class OpenStruct
def new_ostruct_member(name)
name = name.to_sym
unless respond_to?(name)
define_openstruct_methods(name)
end
name
end
def define_openstruct_methods(name)
define_singleton_method(name) { @table[name] }
define_singleton_method("#{name}=") { |x| modifiable[name] = x }
name
end
def method_missing(mid, *args) # :nodoc:
len = args.length
if mname = mid[/.*(?==\z)/m]
if len != 1
raise ArgumentError, "wrong number of arguments (#{len} for 1)", caller(1)
end
modifiable[define_openstruct_methods(mname)] = args[0]
elsif len == 0
if @table.key?(mid)
define_openstruct_methods(mid)
@table[mid]
end
else
err = NoMethodError.new "undefined method `#{mid}' for #{self}", mid, args
err.set_backtrace caller(1)
raise err
end
end
end
```
Running the previously attached benchmark prefaced with this code, the "assigned on initialization" benchmark outperforms the "assigned after initialization" one.
However, it does raise the question: Should calling `#foo=` define the methods actively, or should we only try to define on `#foo` to match lazy behavior on the initializer?
----------------------------------------
Bug #11901: Performance Issue with OpenStruct
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11901#change-55789
* Author: Ariel Caplan
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Marc-Andre Lafortune
* ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin13]
* Backport:
----------------------------------------
After recent changes to define OpenStruct getter/setter methods lazily, there is a heavy performance impact for the use case where an attribute is assigned at initialization time (i.e. `Openstruct.new(foo: :bar)`). Once an attribute is stored in the internal hash, the appropriate singleton methods will never be defined, due to the recent changes to OpenStruct's `#respond_to_missing?` - meaning that every time I call `#foo` or `#foo=` it relies on `#method_missing`. Benchmark using benchmark-ips is attached.
I'm primarily concerned about the case of configuration objects, which may be populated at initialization time and then accessed many times throughout the life of the program.
---Files--------------------------------
openstruct-regression-benchmark.rb (1.36 KB)
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-27 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <redmine.issue-11901.20151227153720@ruby-lang.org>
2015-12-27 15:37 ` [ruby-core:72523] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11901] [Open] Performance Issue with OpenStruct ariel.caplan
2015-12-27 15:48 ` [ruby-core:72524] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11901] " ariel.caplan
2015-12-27 16:02 ` ariel.caplan [this message]
2015-12-31 5:40 ` [ruby-core:72631] " ruby-core
2015-12-31 5:43 ` [ruby-core:72632] " ruby-core
2015-12-31 17:10 ` [ruby-core:72639] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11901] [Closed] " naruse
2016-01-01 17:35 ` [ruby-core:72658] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11901] " ruby-core
2016-01-01 17:38 ` [ruby-core:72659] " eregontp
2016-03-29 9:52 ` [ruby-core:74680] [Ruby trunk Bug#11901] " naruse
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.journal-55789.20151227160202.6e47ea861aed867f@ruby-lang.org \
--to=ruby-core@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).