"".to_string() is slower than String::new()

[cgaebel]

In a lot of rust code, I see "".to_string() being used as the default method of creating a new string. This would normally be fine, but it's actually noticeably slower than String::new() because it goes through the formatting infrastructure.

It'd be nice if this pattern could be special-cased in String::to_string's implementation, or the optimizer made to do this transformation better.

[thestinger]

It also allocates a lot of memory (128 bytes minimum) even for small / empty strings.

#16415

[reem]

This appears to be fixed. "".to_string().capacity() == 0.

[dotdash]

Only the capacity part of it. The code that creates the String instance is still awful. Apparently there's more inlining going on now, so the code for to_string from an old rustc (0.13.0-dev (7e43f41 2014-11-15 13:22:24 +0000)) and from a current one (0.13.0-dev (3a9305c 2014-12-14 09:22:24 +0000) isn't really comparable, but it's far far off from what you get from either String::from_str("") or String::new() (those two produce the same asm).

pub fn from_str() -> String {
    String::from_str("")
}

    .section    .text._ZN8from_str20h167891935c11e273laaE,"ax",@progbits
    .globl  _ZN8from_str20h167891935c11e273laaE
    .align  16, 0x90
    .type   _ZN8from_str20h167891935c11e273laaE,@function
_ZN8from_str20h167891935c11e273laaE:
    .cfi_startproc
    movq    $1, (%rdi)
    movq    $0, 16(%rdi)
    movq    $0, 8(%rdi)
    movq    %rdi, %rax
    retq
.Ltmp44:
    .size   _ZN8from_str20h167891935c11e273laaE, .Ltmp44-_ZN8from_str20h167891935c11e273laaE
    .cfi_endproc

OTOH, this

pub fn to_string() -> String {
    "".to_string()
}

gives you almost 200 lines of asm (including labels), and that still calls into fmt().

[dotdash]

extern crate test;

use test::{Bencher, black_box};

#[bench]
pub fn to_string(b: &mut Bencher) {
    b.iter(|| {
        black_box("".to_string());
    });
}

#[bench]
pub fn from_str(b: &mut Bencher) {
    b.iter(|| {
        black_box(String::from_str(""));
    });
}

running 2 tests
test from_str  ... bench:         0 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test to_string ... bench:        35 ns/iter (+/- 3)

test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 2 measured

[thestinger]

A naive micro-benchmark won't be measuring the cost of reallocations. In the real world, it will rarely have room to expand in-place every time.

[dotdash]

Neither of those should allocate. You get a String without any allocated capacity in both cases.

[thestinger]

I'm aware. I'm pointing it out in advance so it can be done properly, because I'm sure measuring the cost of the repeated reallocations is going to be done too.

[SimonSapin]

What is the preferred way to do this these days? servo/servo#4682 is changing Servo to use to_owned, but it implies importing the ToOwned trait all over the place. Such imports for such a common operation should really be in the prelude.

[lambda-fairy]

Note that we can't just special case ToString for str, since that would lead to an overlapping instance.

I have another idea though. How about we implement to_string() in std::fmt instead? By putting it in std::fmt we can deal with the internal Formatter directly, cutting out all that indirection.

That won't solve the problem of allocating too much, but it might lessen the code bloat a bit.

[lambda-fairy]

After some thought, I came up with another, simpler, idea.

First, add a method to Display:

pub trait Display {
    // ...
    #[inline]
    fn as_str_slice(&self) -> Option<&str> { None }
}

This method will return None for all types except str, where it returns Some(self):

impl Display for str {
    // ...
    #[inline]
    fn as_str_slice(&self) -> Option<&str> { Some(self) }
}

Now, here's where the magic lies. In ToString, before invoking the format machinery we check as_str_slice first. If this returns Some, we simply copy the slice, skipping the machinery altogether:

impl<T: Display + ?Sized> ToString for T {
    fn to_string(&self) -> String {
        match self.as_str_slice() {
            Some(s) => s.to_owned(),
            None => // as before
        }
    }
}

Since .as_str_slice() is inlined, the branch should be optimized out (I'm not an expert on this, so correct me if I'm wrong). So it'll work the same as before for non-string types, but for str it'll use the fast .to_owned().

Thoughts? I guess it's a bit icky having an extra method there, but if we hide it from the docs it should be unobtrusive enough.

[lambda-fairy]

Okay, so I prototyped my idea. Initial benchmarks look very promising, with "".to_string() optimizing down to single call to .to_owned(), and 123.to_string() almost unaffected by the change.

There's a problem though with smart pointer types, specifically Arc<T>. Arc implements Display, which gives it a ToString instance via the blanket impl. Problem is, if T is not a string, then .to_string() will now borrow the Arc twice: once when calling .as_str_slice(), and once when calling format!(). The compiler may be able to optimize that out, but it still feels icky.

This decision should really be made on the type level, using either associated types or negative bounds. Unfortunately the associated types solution doesn't work yet (#20400), and negative bounds are still in the pipeline (rust-lang/rfcs#586).

So I guess we'll have to wait.

[huonw]

Problem is, if T is not a string, then .to_string() will now borrow the Arc twice: once when calling .as_str_slice(), and once when calling format!().

Borrowing a pointer out of an Arc is very cheap (only a pointer offset compared to a plain Box or &); the expensive part is construction/copying (.clone()) and destruction when the reference counts are modified atomically.

[lambda-fairy]

Borrowing a pointer out of an Arc is very cheap (only a pointer offset compared to a plain Box or &); the expensive part is construction/copying (.clone()) and destruction when the reference counts are modified atomically.

Ah, I stand corrected! That makes my solution practical, though it still feels like a hack.

I guess if we treat this as a temporary solution, to be removed when negative bounds land, it should be okay.

[ranma42]

cc me

[ahmedcharles]

Is this still relevant/reproducible?

[frewsxcv]

Specialization has landed. This can be worked on now?

[japaric]

@frewsxcv there's already a PR: #32586

[apasel422]

Was this effectively fixed by #32586?

[steveklabnik]

It should have been, yes!