serpent

serpent

Following this small benchmark experiment (https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a2689de5), I wrote a short Elixir script to calculate the counts of distinct words in a text read from stdin. Other language versions are available (http://ptrace.fefe.de/wp/) as well as instructions to create the input file and some performance results (http://ptrace.fefe.de/wp/timings2019.txt).

#!/usr/bin/env elixir

# setup input stream for reading and tokenisation
IO.stream(:stdio, :line)
  |> Stream.flat_map(&(String.split(&1)))

  # ingest stream, count words, sort result
  |> Enum.reduce(%{}, fn x, acc -> Map.update(acc, x, 1, &(&1 + 1)) end)
  |> Map.to_list
  |> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)

  # print it beautifully
  |> Enum.each(fn {word, count} ->
    IO.puts(String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8) <> " " <> word)
  end)

It performs pretty badly:

% time ./exwp.exs < words.txt > /dev/null
./exwp.exs < words.txt > /dev/null  137.20s user 8.48s system 110% cpu 2:11.49 total

Comparing with the Ruby version from above link:

% time ./wp.rb < words.txt > /dev/null
./wp.rb < words.txt > /dev/null  21.54s user 0.19s system 99% cpu 21.750 total

Sure, this is not a typical use case and BEAM is not exactly famous for its string performance – but it’s fun to play around, right? Now I’m wondering, is it just my script? Is there room for improvement?

First 10 of 40 Posts Switch mode

kokolegorille

kokolegorille

Welcome to the forum,

There is a better implementation :slight_smile:

PS: You might have a look at Flow as the example is about counting words in a textfile.

jola

jola

Could you share a link to the input?

I tried generating it and

➜  llvm-8.0.0.src find . -type f | xargs cat | tr -sc 'a-zA-Z0-9_' ' ' | ../lines > words.txt
tr: Illegal byte sequence
josevalim

josevalim

Creator of Elixir

To be precise, what is slow in this case is not the string processing, but the fact that Map is a immutable data-structure. For example, using :ets.update_counter/4 should speed up things considerably. The documentation for Flow talks about this too.

serpent

serpent OP

For me

% find . -type f | xargs cat | LANG="en_US.ISO-8859-1" tr -sc 'a-zA-Z0-9_' ' ' | ../lines > words.txt

did work. I put it on my server as well (http://teralink.net/\~serpent/words.txt).

jola

jola

For reference, your original code took 1:54 total on my machine.

Simply running

IO.stream(:stdio, :line)
|> Stream.flat_map(&(String.split(&1)))
|> Stream.run()

takes around 35s on my machine. So just reading from IO and splitting is already slower than the full ruby implementation.

Switching to IO.binstream speeds it up from 35 to 25s , so that’s one step. The difference is that we don’t have UTF8 support, which I assume most of the implementations don’t bother with anyway.

Next lets take a look at @josevalim’s suggestion of using ETS

# Create the ETS table
:ets.new(:words, [{:write_concurrency, true}, :named_table])

# setup input stream for reading and tokenisation
IO.binstream(:stdio, :line)
|> Stream.flat_map(&String.split(&1))
# Insert and update counters for each word in table
|> Enum.each(fn word -> :ets.update_counter(:words, word, {2, 1}, {word, 0}) end)

# Read all rows from the table
:ets.match_object(:words, {:"$0", :"$1"})
|> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)
# print it beautifully
|> Enum.each(fn {word, count} ->
  IO.puts(String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8) <> " " <> word)
end)

This runs in 42s on my machine, so we’ve made a big improvement from 114s. We can shave another 2s off by replacing the last line with building an iolist.

|> Enum.map(fn {word, count} ->
  [String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8), " ", word, "\n"] end)
|> IO.puts

But we’re still not really using the concurrency available to Elixir. @kokolegorille suggested using Flow, which lets us easily run on more than one core. Using almost the exact example posted in the documentation for Flow I ran

IO.binstream(:stdio, :line)
|> Flow.from_enumerable()
|> Flow.flat_map(&String.split(&1))
|> Flow.partition()
|> Flow.reduce(fn -> %{} end, fn word, acc ->
  Map.update(acc, word, 1, & &1 + 1)
end)
|> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)
|> Enum.map(fn {word, count} ->
  [String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8), " ", word, "\n"] end)
|> IO.puts

which finishes in 21s. That means we’ve caught up with ruby. But I dropped ETS, so lets bring it back.

:ets.new(:words, [{:write_concurrency, true}, :named_table, :public])

IO.binstream(:stdio, :line)
|> Flow.from_enumerable()
|> Flow.flat_map(&String.split(&1))
|> Flow.partition()
|> Flow.each(fn word ->
  :ets.update_counter(:words, word, {2, 1}, {word, 0})
end)
|> Flow.run()

:ets.match_object(:words, {:"$0", :"$1"})
|> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)
|> Enum.map(fn {word, count} ->
  [String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8), " ", word, "\n"] end)
|> IO.puts

This doesn’t run any faster than the previous Flow version, still clocking in at 21s (saw some variance, maybe 20-22s, not surprising since I’m using around 7/8 virtual cores and I have lots of apps running). I’m not really sure why it’s not faster, considering we’re avoiding updating a Map. I’m curious if there’s a smarter way of reading the ETS table, maybe even in a sorted fashion?

Finally, the original post claims to allow VMs startup time before measuring, which your examples of using time does not. Timing the code from start to finish gives me an actual time of at least 0.6s less than what time reports. If you want to get more accurate than that you’ll need to use a proper testing harness like GitHub - bencheeorg/benchee: Easy and extensible benchmarking in Elixir providing you with lots of statistics! · GitHub

ps fun note about ETS, without {:write_concurrency, true} the final version takes 120s instead of 21s

pps noticed I forgot an unnecessary .partition in the final version. Removing it yields a run time of ~17s.

20
Post #5
dimitarvp

dimitarvp

Not sure if we can get sorting but using Erlang’s relatively new :counters module should be even faster than ETS in this case.

josevalim

josevalim

Creator of Elixir

Great summary @jola!

Note that If you are using ETS, you don’t need partition. So the previous version was also correct. In fact, if you don’t need partition for this example, you likely don’t need flow either and IO.binstream+Task.async_stream will most likely be fine.

For reading ETS, you can also use :ets.tab2list to get the whole table as a list, but I am not sure if it makes a big difference.

counters require an index (integer) as a key, so you would need a way to convert words into integers which may end-up offsetting the benefits you would get from counterss.

joaoevangelista

joaoevangelista

Forenote: I’m on Windows using Git Bash so my IO is garbage

I tried some of the code, first I used the words.txt file that @serpent provided and since I’m dumb and I don’t know how to feed from cat to elixir I used File.stream!/1 sorry!
But the points that I want to shared that at least occurred on my machine was :

  • String.split/3 on: |> Stream.flat_map(&String.split(&1, " ")) is faster than String.split/1 for splitting at spaces
  • Printing the values also adds a lot of overhead

I came to the loose conclusion that iterating and strings are not the weak point but the IO devices are?

Here is the code:

# file: wc.exs


# removes 20ms from creation
:ets.new(:words, [{:write_concurrency, true}, :named_table])

c = fn ->

  File.stream!("words.txt")
  |> Stream.flat_map(&String.split(&1, " ")) # using space decrease from approx half than using split/1
  |> Enum.each(fn word -> :ets.update_counter(:words, word, {2, 1}, {word, 0}) end)
  :ets.match_object(:words, {:"$0", :"$1"})
  |> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)
  # print it beautifully
  |> Enum.each(fn {word, count} ->
    # print does add overhead from 187 to 2282
    IO.puts(String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8) <> " " <> word)
  end)
end

# only time code execution, not vm start
{micro, :ok} = :timer.tc(c)
IO.puts("#{micro/1000}ms")


Run with: $ elixir wc.exs

josevalim

josevalim

Creator of Elixir

You can do this to verify. Replace this:

|> Enum.each(fn {word, count} ->
  IO.puts(String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8) <> " " <> word)
end)

by this:

|> Enum.map(fn {word, count} ->
  [String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8), " ", word, "\n"]
end)
|> IO.write()
jola

jola

Eked out a another 3s improvement by compiling a pattern for String.split. Now down to 14s run time. Also, if I switch to File.stream! instead of IO.binstream I’m down to 12s, but I’ll stick with the original code since that was part of the challenge.

defmodule App do
  def run do
    :ets.new(:words, [{:write_concurrency, true}, :named_table, :public])
    space = :binary.compile_pattern([" ", "\n"])

    IO.binstream(:stdio, :line)
    |> Flow.from_enumerable()
    |> Flow.flat_map(&String.split(&1, space))
    |> Flow.each(fn word ->
      :ets.update_counter(:words, word, {2, 1}, {word, 0})
    end)
    |> Flow.run()

    :ets.match_object(:words, {:"$0", :"$1"})
    |> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)
    |> Enum.map(fn {word, count} ->
      [String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8), " ", word, "\n"]
    end)
    |> IO.puts
  end
end

IO.puts(:stderr, elem(:timer.tc(&Aapp.run/0), 0))

in comparison the Flow-less synchronous version runs in 25s

defmodule App do
  def run do
    :ets.new(:words, [{:write_concurrency, true}, :named_table])
    space = :binary.compile_pattern([" ", "\n"])

    IO.binstream(:stdio, :line)
    |> Stream.flat_map(&String.split(&1, space))
    |> Enum.each(fn word -> :ets.update_counter(:words, word, {2, 1}, {word, 0}) end)

    :ets.match_object(:words, {:"$0", :"$1"})
    |> Enum.sort(fn {_, a}, {_, b} -> b < a end)
    |> Enum.map(fn {word, count} ->
      [String.pad_leading(Integer.to_string(count), 8), " ", word, "\n"] end)
    |> IO.puts
  end
end

IO.puts(:stderr, elem(:timer.tc(&App.run/0), 0))

Where Next? Top

Trending in Questions Top

stjefim
Hello! Suppose you are building workflow (order / task / payment) processing system with the following requirements: Each workflow con...
New
jonnycharles
I’m in search of an Elixir library that offers PDF generation capabilities similar to Ruby’s Prawn. While there have been discussions abo...
New
spammy
I’m looking to build a personal workflow to quickly deploy web applications written in elixir/phoenix, for local consumption (ie not on t...
New
dli
Before I dive in myself, did anyone successfully sprinkle Hologram into their existing LiveView app? Looking for hints regarding: Addi...
New
roeland
Kia ora, We have been using elixir-google-api to connect to Google Drive. However, with the updates to Tesla due to CVEs this is now bro...
New
bottlenecked
Hi all, I wanted to ask how the community is dealing with post-release steps. Today we have Ecto migrations, which make sure that the db...
New
rahultumpala
Hello, I have an Elixir backend that implements a custom protocol over TCP. I want to load test the backend and assess the performance o...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

JesseHerrick
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
jimsynz
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Damirados
Hello everyone. After busy few months I am happy to announce v0.1.0 of Emerge &amp; Solve. They are GUI (Emerge) and State management (S...
New
netoum
Corex is an accessible, unstyled UI component library for Phoenix that integrates Zag.js state machines using Vanilla JavaScript and Live...
New
ausimian
Emily is an Elixir library that runs Nx computations on Apple’s MLX. Install it as the default Nx backend and Nx, defn, Axon, Nx.Serving,...
New
juhalehtonen
There has been a thread to discuss the Stack Overflow Developer Survey on this forum every year since 2018, so here’s yet another one for...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement