Skip to content
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

Remove invalid optimization from put that negatively impacts performance #86

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dwforbes
Copy link

@dwforbes dwforbes commented Jun 6, 2017

kh_put_##name has an early check for an initial empty bucket that negatively impacts significant use, while only benefiting unrealistically simplistic benchmarks (e.g. inserting a single item).

As an example, for k-nucleotide, with this revision on an arbitrary test machine the entire process completes in ~3.3s real time, with ~9.5s of user time. Prior to this revision it completes in ~3.9s, with ~11.0s of user time.

@trapexit
Copy link

trapexit commented Jun 6, 2017

Do you mean "decreases flag memory usage"?

@dwforbes
Copy link
Author

dwforbes commented Jun 6, 2017

The first commit -- 9b12aa4 -- was the only one I intended to get captured in the pull request, in that case removing an unnecessary extra conditional that adds overhead (but was seemingly added as an optimization), discovered during some quick analysis regarding the performance of C in the nucleotide benchmark game.

It is a change that can only be positive, even for projects that might have poorly considered dependencies on internals.

The second commit -- 348601f -- is a potentially breaking change that reduces the amount of bit packing, increasing the memory footprint for flags (albeit still a tiny overhead for all but the most enormous of hash tables), however it has a dramatic benefit to performance on all architectures because it removes three expensive bit shifts per loop evaluation. It can break uses that might have a direct hard-fixed dependencies on the structure of flags, for instance (though any that used the macros provided would be fine), so it was more an example of cost-benefit analysis of memory versus performance.

larseggert added a commit to NTAP/warpcore that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2019
@larseggert
Copy link

Both of these patches are great additions

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants