Browse files


  • Loading branch information...
1 parent af69945 commit ee18d97cbaa692cc0137533924087942b1055a70 @lihaoyi committed Sep 29, 2016
Showing with 22 additions and 6 deletions.
  1. +22 −6 post/15 - Benchmarking Scala
@@ -675,8 +675,10 @@ collection to put stuff into, you should not use a `Set` or `Map` unless you
*really* need the uniqueness guarantees they provide. Otherwise, chucking
everything into a `List` or `mutable.Buffer` is much faster.
-Pre-allocating an array and then calling `.toSet` or `.toMap` on it isn't much
+Pre-allocating an array and then calling `.toSet` or `.toMap` on it isn't
+faster than building up the `Set` or `Map` bit by bit using `+`. This is in
+contrast to calling `.toVector`, which *is* faster than building up the
+`Vector` incrementally...
| **construct** | **0** | **1** | **4** | **16** | **64** | **256** | **1,024** | **4,096** | **16,192** | **65,536** | **262,144** | **1,048,576** |
@@ -771,8 +773,8 @@ element-by-element (as seen in the
of bulk-concatenation it's still faster just to copy everything manually into a
new array and skip all the fancy data-structure stuff.
-`Vector` and `List` concatenation is much slower than concatenating
-`mutable.Buffer`s` or `Array`s, with `Vector` concatenation being twice as fast
+Though `Vector` and `List` concatenation is much slower than concatenating
+`mutable.Buffer`s or `Array`s, `Vector` concatenation is twice as fast
as `List` concatenation.
`Set` and `Map` again are surprisingly slow, with concatenation being 10x
@@ -872,17 +874,31 @@ keeping them in un-boxed `Array`s will save you tons of memory.
Apart from primitive `Array`s, even boxed `Array`s of objects still have some
surprisingly nice performance characteristics. Concatenating two `Array`s is
faster than concatenating any other data-structure, even immutable `List`s and
-`Vector`s which are supposed to have clever structural sharing to reduce the
+`Vector`s which are [Persistent Data Structure] and supposed to have clever
+structural sharing to reduce the
need to copy-everything. This holds even for with a million elements, and is
a 10x improvement that's definitely non-trivial. There's an open issue
-[SI-4442]( for someone to fix this.
+[SI-4442]( for someone to fix this,
+but for now this is the state of the world.
Indexing into the `Array`, and iterating over it with a `while`-loop, are also
so fast that the time taken is not measurable given these benchmarks. Even
using `:+` to build an `Array` from individual elements, ostentiably "O(n^2)"
and "slow", turns out to be faster than building a `Vector` for collections of
up to ~64 elements.
+It is surprising to me how much faster `Array` concatenation is than
+everything else, even "fancy" [Persistent Data Structure]s like `List` and
+`Vector` with structural sharing to avoid copying the whole thing; it turns out
+copying the whole thing is actually faster than trying to combine the fancy
+persistent data structures! Thus, even if you have an immutable collection you
+a passing around, and sometimes splitting into pieces or concatenating with
+other *similarly-sized* collections, it is actually faster to use an `Array`
+(perhaps boxed in a `WrappedArray` if you want it to be immutable) as long as
+you avoid the pathological build-up-element-by-element use case.
+[Persistent Data Structure]:
### Sets and Maps are slow
Looking up things in an immutable `Vector` takes 1/10th to 1/20th the time

0 comments on commit ee18d97

Please sign in to comment.