Skip to content

bytes, strings: speed up Split{,After}Seq #73685

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

bytes, strings: speed up Split{,After}Seq #73685

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+14 −24

Conversation

jub0bs
Copy link
Contributor

@jub0bs jub0bs commented May 13, 2025

CL 669735 brought a welcome performance boost to splitSeq; however, it rendered explodeSeq ineligible for inlining and failed to update that function's doc comment.

This CL inlines the call to explodeSeq in splitSeq, thereby unlocking a further speedup in the case of an empty separator, and removes function explodeSeq altogether.

Some benchmarks results:

goos: darwin
goarch: amd64
pkg: strings
cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz
│ old │ new │
│ sec/op │ sec/op vs base │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8 5.136m ± 6% 3.180m ± 6% -38.09% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8 995.9µ ± 1% 988.4µ ± 0% -0.75% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8 593.1µ ± 2% 591.7µ ± 1% ~ (p=0.253 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8 5.554m ± 3% 3.432m ± 2% -38.20% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8 997.4µ ± 0% 1000.0µ ± 8% ~ (p=0.121 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8 591.7µ ± 1% 588.9µ ± 0% -0.48% (p=0.004 n=20)
geomean 1.466m 1.247m -14.97%

                               │     old      │                 new                 │
                               │     B/op     │    B/op     vs base                 │

SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8 0.000 ± 0% 0.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8 0.000 ± 0% 0.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8 0.000 ± 0% 0.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8 0.000 ± 0% 0.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8 0.000 ± 0% 0.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8 0.000 ± 0% 0.000 ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
geomean ² +0.00% ²
¹ all samples are equal
² summaries must be >0 to compute geomean

@jub0bs
bytes, strings: speed up Split{,After}Seq
3449340 
CL 669735 brought a welcome performance boost to splitSeq; however, it
rendered explodeSeq ineligible for inlining and failed to update that
function's doc comment.

This CL inlines the call to explodeSeq in splitSeq, thereby unlocking
a further speedup in the case of an empty separator, and removes
function explodeSeq altogether.

Some benchmarks results:

goos: darwin
goarch: amd64
pkg: strings
cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz
                                   │     old     │                 new                  │
                                   │   sec/op    │    sec/op     vs base                │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8             5.136m ± 6%    3.180m ± 6%  -38.09% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8        995.9µ ± 1%    988.4µ ± 0%   -0.75% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8         593.1µ ± 2%    591.7µ ± 1%        ~ (p=0.253 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8        5.554m ± 3%    3.432m ± 2%  -38.20% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8   997.4µ ± 0%   1000.0µ ± 8%        ~ (p=0.121 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8    591.7µ ± 1%    588.9µ ± 0%   -0.48% (p=0.004 n=20)
geomean                              1.466m         1.247m       -14.97%

                                   │     old      │                 new                 │
                                   │     B/op     │    B/op     vs base                 │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8             0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8        0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8         0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8        0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8   0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8    0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
geomean                                         ²               +0.00%                ²
¹ all samples are equal
² summaries must be >0 to compute geomean
@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR (HEAD: 3449340) has been imported to Gerrit for code review.

Please visit Gerrit at https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/672175.

Important tips:

  • Don't comment on this PR. All discussion takes place in Gerrit.
  • You need a Gmail or other Google account to log in to Gerrit.
  • To change your code in response to feedback:
    • Push a new commit to the branch used by your GitHub PR.
    • A new "patch set" will then appear in Gerrit.
    • Respond to each comment by marking as Done in Gerrit if implemented as suggested. You can alternatively write a reply.
    • Critical: you must click the blue Reply button near the top to publish your Gerrit responses.
    • Multiple commits in the PR will be squashed by GerritBot.
  • The title and description of the GitHub PR are used to construct the final commit message.
    • Edit these as needed via the GitHub web interface (not via Gerrit or git).
    • You should word wrap the PR description at ~76 characters unless you need longer lines (e.g., for tables or URLs).
  • See the Sending a change via GitHub and Reviews sections of the Contribution Guide as well as the FAQ for details.

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Gopher Robot:

Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from jub0bs:

Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from qiu laidongfeng2:

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1 Commit-Queue+1

(1 comment)

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Go LUCI:

Patch Set 1:

Dry run: CV is trying the patch.

Bot data: {"action":"start","triggered_at":"2025-05-14T13:52:53Z","revision":"87d41d5df81c676e721f56aaf012b91c731c4298"}

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from qiu laidongfeng2:

Patch Set 1: -Commit-Queue

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Go LUCI:

Patch Set 1:

This CL has passed the run

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Go LUCI:

Patch Set 1: LUCI-TryBot-Result+1

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Keith Randall:

Patch Set 1: Auto-Submit+1 Code-Review+2

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Keith Randall:

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

gopherbot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 14, 2025
@jub0bs @gopherbot
bytes, strings: speed up Split{,After}Seq
14fc54f 
CL 669735 brought a welcome performance boost to splitSeq; however, it rendered explodeSeq ineligible for inlining and failed to update that function's doc comment.

This CL inlines the call to explodeSeq in splitSeq, thereby unlocking a further speedup in the case of an empty separator, and removes function explodeSeq altogether.

Some benchmarks results:

goos: darwin
goarch: amd64
pkg: strings
cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz
                                   │     old     │                 new                  │
                                   │   sec/op    │    sec/op     vs base                │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8             5.136m ± 6%    3.180m ± 6%  -38.09% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8        995.9µ ± 1%    988.4µ ± 0%   -0.75% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8         593.1µ ± 2%    591.7µ ± 1%        ~ (p=0.253 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8        5.554m ± 3%    3.432m ± 2%  -38.20% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8   997.4µ ± 0%   1000.0µ ± 8%        ~ (p=0.121 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8    591.7µ ± 1%    588.9µ ± 0%   -0.48% (p=0.004 n=20)
geomean                              1.466m         1.247m       -14.97%

                                   │     old      │                 new                 │
                                   │     B/op     │    B/op     vs base                 │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8             0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8        0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8         0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8        0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8   0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8    0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
geomean                                         ²               +0.00%                ²
¹ all samples are equal
² summaries must be >0 to compute geomean

Change-Id: I5767b68dc1a4fbcb2ac20683830a49ee3eb1bee1
GitHub-Last-Rev: 3449340
GitHub-Pull-Request: #73685
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/672175
Reviewed-by: qiu laidongfeng2 <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <[email protected]>
Auto-Submit: Keith Randall <[email protected]>
LUCI-TryBot-Result: Go LUCI <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <[email protected]>
@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

Message from Robert Griesemer:

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2

Please don’t reply on this GitHub thread. Visit golang.org/cl/672175.
After addressing review feedback, remember to publish your drafts!

@gopherbot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is being closed because golang.org/cl/672175 has been merged.

@gopherbot gopherbot closed this May 14, 2025
@jub0bs jub0bs deleted the speed-up-splitseq branch May 16, 2025 08:13
Sirherobrine23 pushed a commit to Sirherobrine23/go that referenced this pull request May 24, 2025
@jub0bs @Sirherobrine23
bytes, strings: speed up Split{,After}Seq
ae18f55 
CL 669735 brought a welcome performance boost to splitSeq; however, it rendered explodeSeq ineligible for inlining and failed to update that function's doc comment.

This CL inlines the call to explodeSeq in splitSeq, thereby unlocking a further speedup in the case of an empty separator, and removes function explodeSeq altogether.

Some benchmarks results:

goos: darwin
goarch: amd64
pkg: strings
cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz
                                   │     old     │                 new                  │
                                   │   sec/op    │    sec/op     vs base                │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8             5.136m ± 6%    3.180m ± 6%  -38.09% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8        995.9µ ± 1%    988.4µ ± 0%   -0.75% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8         593.1µ ± 2%    591.7µ ± 1%        ~ (p=0.253 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8        5.554m ± 3%    3.432m ± 2%  -38.20% (p=0.000 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8   997.4µ ± 0%   1000.0µ ± 8%        ~ (p=0.121 n=20)
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8    591.7µ ± 1%    588.9µ ± 0%   -0.48% (p=0.004 n=20)
geomean                              1.466m         1.247m       -14.97%

                                   │     old      │                 new                 │
                                   │     B/op     │    B/op     vs base                 │
SplitSeqEmptySeparator-8             0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqSingleByteSeparator-8        0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitSeqMultiByteSeparator-8         0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqEmptySeparator-8        0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqSingleByteSeparator-8   0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
SplitAfterSeqMultiByteSeparator-8    0.000 ± 0%     0.000 ± 0%       ~ (p=1.000 n=20) ¹
geomean                                         ²               +0.00%                ²
¹ all samples are equal
² summaries must be >0 to compute geomean

Change-Id: I5767b68dc1a4fbcb2ac20683830a49ee3eb1bee1
GitHub-Last-Rev: 3449340
GitHub-Pull-Request: golang#73685
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/672175
Reviewed-by: qiu laidongfeng2 <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <[email protected]>
Auto-Submit: Keith Randall <[email protected]>
LUCI-TryBot-Result: Go LUCI <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
2 participants
@jub0bs @gopherbot