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

native implementation of set.rb #4690

Merged
merged 16 commits into from Sep 17, 2017
Merged

native implementation of set.rb #4690

merged 16 commits into from Sep 17, 2017

Conversation

@kares
Copy link
Member

@kares kares commented Jun 27, 2017

work towards having Set/SortedSet natively instead of set.rb

had these changes lying around for a long-time (mostly waiting to target 9.2)
primarily this has been motivated for premium Java Integration features :
Set implements java.util.Set and SortedSet implements java.util.SortedSet

but there's also a significant gain in performance.
set.rb is rather loosely written with some ugly-ness such as patching/features-detection on SortedSet.new

for maximum compatibility sets are backed by a Hash like before (and serializes the same as before), this is important for some older versions of Sprockets when under Rails switching between MRI and JRuby.

SortedSet uses Java's TreeSet implementation for ordering as it was available and performs better than the pieces in set.rb

some (naive) performance numbers, also showcasing Set is now at Java's HashSet speed :

Ruby Set#include? hit   0.530000   0.000000   0.530000 (  0.473302)
Ruby Set#include? miss  0.450000   0.000000   0.450000 (  0.452750)
HashSet#include? hit    0.390000   0.000000   0.390000 (  0.388358)
HashSet#include? miss   0.370000   0.000000   0.370000 (  0.364610)
     Set.new([1,2,3])    1.860000   0.010000   1.870000 (  1.847379)
SortedSet.new([1,2,3])   3.560000   0.010000   3.570000 (  3.538512)
     Set#inspect         4.180000   0.000000   4.180000 (  4.157021)
SortedSet#inspect        4.160000   0.010000   4.170000 (  4.145266)
     Set#flatten         1.510000   0.000000   1.510000 (  1.504799)
     Set#each {|e| e}    1.310000   0.000000   1.310000 (  1.306374)

JRuby 9.1.9

Ruby Set#include? hit   0.660000   0.000000   0.660000 (  0.657267)
Ruby Set#include? miss  0.810000   0.000000   0.810000 (  0.811419)
HashSet#include? hit    0.430000   0.000000   0.430000 (  0.421336)
HashSet#include? miss   0.370000   0.000000   0.370000 (  0.367006)
     Set.new([1,2,3])    8.600000   0.010000   8.610000 (  8.455883)
SortedSet.new([1,2,3])  15.920000   0.020000  15.940000 ( 15.828404)
     Set#inspect         6.710000   0.000000   6.710000 (  6.633052)
SortedSet#inspect        5.730000   0.010000   5.740000 (  5.663528)
     Set#flatten         8.960000   0.000000   8.960000 (  8.879096)
     Set#each {|e| e}    1.680000   0.000000   1.680000 (  1.663696)

MRI 2.3.3

Ruby Set#include? hit   0.960000   0.000000   0.960000 (  0.957069)
Ruby Set#include? miss  1.040000   0.000000   1.040000 (  1.043396)
     Set.new([1,2,3])   20.590000   0.010000  20.600000 ( 20.606219)
SortedSet.new([1,2,3])  30.410000   0.000000  30.410000 ( 30.411511)
     Set#inspect        10.890000   0.000000  10.890000 ( 10.889514)
SortedSet#inspect       11.010000   0.000000  11.010000 ( 11.007346)
     Set#flatten        20.050000   0.000000  20.050000 ( 20.054732)
     Set#each {|e| e}    2.680000   0.000000   2.680000 (  2.686750)
@kares
Copy link
Member Author

@kares kares commented Jun 27, 2017

also to be noted that due use of Sets in Rails this has a noticeable impact on a decently sized Rails app.
... e.g. I am seeing a 15% rake test on master compared to 9.1.9.0 (probably not all due this but some).

UPDATE: compared to 9.1.12 its still seems to be a consistent 5% improvement using this branch ...

@kares kares added this to the JRuby 9.2.0.0 milestone Jun 28, 2017
@kares kares force-pushed the test-set-native branch from 09a504d to c69e177 Sep 17, 2017
kares added 16 commits Sep 17, 2017
... with auto (magic) toJava conversions (like RubyArray does)
... wouldn't care really but this is spec-ed by RubySpecs
(and raises an ArgumentError with a more useful message)
... relaxed the respond_to?(:<=>) expectation as it seems less important
... necessary since we use some Java internal structures

its been implemented in Java, could have been done with _load/_dump
although would require exposing some of the Set/SortedSet internals
... and thus MRI's (pure Ruby) set.rb implementation as well
important with Rails using Sprockets at its marshalling Set instances
@kares kares force-pushed the test-set-native branch from c69e177 to f9d0d0f Sep 17, 2017
@kares kares merged commit 7a6eb69 into master Sep 17, 2017
0 of 2 checks passed
0 of 2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build could not complete due to an error
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build failed
Details
@kares kares deleted the test-set-native branch Sep 17, 2017
@headius headius mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2018
12 of 15 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant
You can’t perform that action at this time.