2

implement advance_(back_)_by on more iterators by the8472 · Pull Request #87091...

 2 years ago
source link: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87091
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.

Copy link

Contributor

Author

the8472 commented on Jul 14

I ran some of the core benchmarks, decent improvements for the .cycle().skip() case.

# RUSTFLAGS="-Ccodegen-units=1 -Copt-level=3" taskset -c 5 schedtool -B -e ./x.py bench --stage 0 library/core/ --test-args "cycle"

 iter::bench_cycle_skip_take_ref_sum          1,837,376         1,110,352              -727,024  -39.57%   x 1.65 
 iter::bench_cycle_skip_take_sum              1,297,196         525,064                -772,132  -59.52%   x 2.47 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_ref_sum               1,096,240         1,093,491                -2,749   -0.25%   x 1.00 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_skip_ref_sum          588,162           717,214                 129,052   21.94%   x 0.82 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_skip_sum              550,002           474,185                 -75,817  -13.78%   x 1.16 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_sum                   524,600           448,794                 -75,806  -14.45%   x 1.17 
 iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_ref_sum  5,336,791         3,761,926            -1,574,865  -29.51%   x 1.42 
 iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_sum      4,075,445         4,038,599               -36,846   -0.90%   x 1.01 

# RUSTFLAGS="-Ccodegen-units=1 -Copt-level=2 -Ctarget-cpu=native" taskset -c 5 schedtool -B -e ./x.py bench --stage 0 library/core/ --test-args "cycle"

 iter::bench_cycle_skip_take_ref_sum          1,396,256         1,087,191              -309,065  -22.14%   x 1.28 
 iter::bench_cycle_skip_take_sum              1,260,624         474,665                -785,959  -62.35%   x 2.66 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_ref_sum               1,095,467         1,094,409                -1,058   -0.10%   x 1.00 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_skip_ref_sum          1,058,240         1,008,308               -49,932   -4.72%   x 1.05 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_skip_sum              496,065           448,904                 -47,161   -9.51%   x 1.11 
 iter::bench_cycle_take_sum                   469,290           466,544                  -2,746   -0.59%   x 1.01 
 iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_ref_sum  3,453,381         3,737,632               284,251    8.23%   x 0.92 
 iter::bench_skip_cycle_skip_zip_add_sum      3,179,488         3,472,014               292,526    9.20%   x 0.92

The zip case is interesting

    (0..100000).skip(100).cycle().skip(100)
      .zip((0..100000).cycle().skip(10))
      .map(|(a,b)| a+b)
      .skip(100000)
      .take(1000000)
      .sum()

The outer skip will call nth but that can't benefit from advance_by because as long as we have to preserve side-effects map has to use the default implementation for that. But the zipped iterators contain Skip too, which do benefit from advance_by. But that seems very opt-level-dependent.


report

Recommend

About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK