strconv: consider speeding up formatting of small integers with cache #19445

ericlagergren · 2017-03-07T22:16:59Z

Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!

What version of Go are you using (`go version`)?

1.8

What operating system and processor architecture are you using (`go env`)?

GOOS=darwin
GOARCH=amd64

What, why, etc.

While profiling an ORM-like program, I discovered most of the 100+ allocs/op were from calls to strconv.Itoa. By implementing a simple cache in front of strconv.Itoa, the number of allocs dropped by over half and so did the runtime of the function (7 to 3 μs). I looked at some other of our projects and noticed most of the Itoa-like calls were used to format smaller numbers (i.e., < 100). I'd imagine other project that generate SQL or graph query code and need to format parameters ($1, $2, ...) would see decent performance improvements as well.

A small test I ran shows no appreciable difference when the majority of N is > 99 or N is a pseudo-random number in [0, b.N), but runs in 1/10 the time where N < 100 and doesn't incur any allocations.

My issues with this idea:

Small range of numbers (assumes that most calls are < 100)
Only works with base 10
Negative numbers need their own cache or an alloc needs to be made to contact the number with "-"

FWIW the cache only needs to be a 190-byte long string.

name             old time/op    new time/op    delta
SmallItoaAll-4     45.8ns ± 0%    47.4ns ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
SmallItoaRand-4    90.9ns ± 0%    90.5ns ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
SmallItoa-4        31.4ns ± 0%     3.4ns ± 0%   ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)

name             old alloc/op   new alloc/op   delta
SmallItoaAll-4      8.00B ± 0%     8.00B ± 0%   ~     (all equal)
SmallItoaRand-4     7.00B ± 0%     7.00B ± 0%   ~     (all equal)
SmallItoa-4         1.00B ± 0%     0.00B        ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)

name             old allocs/op  new allocs/op  delta
SmallItoaAll-4       1.00 ± 0%      1.00 ± 0%   ~     (all equal)
SmallItoaRand-4      1.00 ± 0%      0.00        ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)
SmallItoa-4          1.00 ± 0%      0.00        ~     (p=1.000 n=1+1)

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

josharian · 2017-03-07T22:45:07Z

I recently looked into doing something similar but lower level. When calling string(b) where b is a byte slice of length exactly one, construct a string using the recently introduced runtime.staticbytes, thus avoiding an allocation. This would eliminate the allocation for single-digit numbers.

I gave it up because I wasn't convinced it was worth the impact on other []byte to string conversions, but in the meantime, I saw some other optimizations, leading to CL 37791. It is possible that the other optimizations would pay for a "single digit" code path.

What do you think, @randall77 @mdempsky?

ericlagergren · 2017-03-07T22:47:07Z

Here's a sample implementation (from the ORM-project):

// smallInts is all integers [0, 99] and only 190 bytes.
const smallInts = "0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899"

func itoa(i int64) string {
	if i < 10 {
		return smallInts[i : i+1]
	}
	if i < 100 {
		return smallInts[2*i-10 : 2*i-8]
	}
	return strconv.FormatInt(i, 10)
}

@josharian I like the idea of single digits! I was a bit bummed when string(b) still allocated.

gopherbot · 2017-03-09T10:40:51Z

CL https://golang.org/cl/37963 mentions this issue.

bradfitz · 2017-03-09T16:28:51Z

Your SQL database and network is fast enough that you notice a 7μs to 3μs drop when formatting SQL queries?

I'm not totally against this, and I usually like to help fight the allocation battles, but I'm a little surprised this comes up often enough to matter. Does it help on any of our existing benchmarks?

ericlagergren · 2017-03-09T16:42:34Z

@bradfitz of course not. I wish it was, though. 😉 I just happened to run pprof (as part of tests after making a change) and notice strconv came up a lot. That's all. It doesn't really affect many existing strconv benchmarks because they deal with too many numbers > 99. And I haven't tested the entire stdlib.

…

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:29 AM Brad Fitzpatrick ***@***.***> wrote: Your SQL database and network is fast enough that you notice a 7μs to 3μs drop when formatting SQL queries? I'm not totally against this, and I usually like to help fight the allocation battles, but I'm a little surprised this comes up often enough to matter. Does it help on any of our existing benchmarks? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19445 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFnwZ1YioEBp63Rkf4SpGUvrvnDiiibAks5rkCjogaJpZM4MWGfA> .

dlsniper · 2017-03-16T20:28:47Z

Sorry if this will sound bad, but will we now start seeing and accepting patches that further add numbers to this? Why stop at 99 and not at 2147483648? That seems to cover a lot more of the frequent use-cases where timestamps are converted from strings to numbers.

mvdan · 2017-03-16T20:32:22Z

@dlsniper do you think that's worth the large amount of binary data and compiler work? 99 numbers, in comparison, is a tiny amount.

bradfitz · 2017-03-16T20:34:06Z

@mvdan, what's wrong with a 20 GB binary? Disk space is cheap. We could avoid allocations! :)

bradfitz · 2017-03-16T20:34:52Z

Actually it'd only be about 18 GB. Even better.

ericlagergren · 2017-03-16T20:35:13Z

since I'm not sure if I can comment on the CL: why a ~1.7kb (total size, including string headers) array instead of a 190 byte const string? Just to save two subtractions?

bradfitz · 2017-03-16T20:36:55Z

@ericlagergren, you can comment on the CL.

I don't see a 2.4k array.

Let me turn your question around: why a 190 byte const string over the existing code?

ericlagergren · 2017-03-16T20:39:54Z

@bradfitz cool, didn't know that–thanks!

I typoed that number. I meant ~1.7k (16 bytes for each string header * 100 elements + the strings' data).

The const string is smaller.

mvdan · 2017-03-16T20:41:56Z

@ericlagergren if you come up with a CL that doesn't complicate the code and keeps performance, I don't see why it wouldn't get merged.

bradfitz · 2017-03-16T20:42:07Z

@ericlagergren, it was originally a const string. Presumably the code review discussion explains why it was changed. I stopped following at some point.

mvdan · 2017-03-16T20:43:27Z

This seems to be the reason by gri:

For one, have you tried actually creating the slice of strings:
var smallInts = []string{"0", "1", "2", ...} ? Then you don't need an extra if and you can just index into it. You don't even need the formatSmallInt function and all the conversion stuff around it.

ericlagergren · 2017-03-16T20:45:46Z

@bradfitz yeah, I read through it and it seems like the idea was trading 1.5kb for two subtractions (-10 and -8). Thus my question.

@mvdan right, I was just asking why the CL went that direction since I wasn't aware I could comment on the CL itself. :-)

bradfitz · 2017-03-16T20:46:14Z

It's possible @griesemer didn't consider the binary size bloat when making his decision if there was no discussion of it previously.

ericlagergren · 2017-03-16T20:47:51Z

@bradfitz That was my concern that sparked the question–I know in the past y'all have made decisions with binary bloat in mind, so I was surprised the CL went with a larger array vs a smaller string. Which led to me wondering if there were other reasons.

griesemer · 2017-03-16T20:56:05Z

1) choosing 100 numbers (0-99) has the advantage that it might be used to further optimize conversions (by dividing in steps of 100 instead of 10) - see https://go-review.googlesource.com/#/c/38255/ as a starting point 2) choosing a slice of strings led to simpler code Re: 2 I was aware of the extra bloat, but it's kind of hard to judge the actual impact. If somebody wants to go back and go to a string constant (the original code didn't have that, it used a initialized byte array converted to a string), I'm ok with that. It should be trivial to have a little function that extracts the right substring and use it instead of the direct access to the slice. And yes, I'm not too eager to add more tables or complexity to this code w/o significant gains throughout (at least 5% or more for relevant benchmarks). - gri

…

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Eric Lagergren ***@***.***> wrote: @bradfitz <https://github.com/bradfitz> That was my concern that sparked the question–I know in the past y'all have made decisions with binary bloat in mind, so I was surprised the CL went with a larger array vs a smaller string. Which led to me wondering if there were other reasons. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19445 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIIkT_SBDUDvBWeup0cC5WNbp5BdpIVjks5rmaAWgaJpZM4MWGfA> .

ericlagergren · 2017-03-16T21:07:00Z

@griesemer thanks for clarifying it for me.

I'll submit a CL if you want, but if CL 38255 is gonna go through then it doesn't seem like there's any point to change it to a const string since it'll just get changed back.

griesemer · 2017-03-16T21:10:58Z

CL 38255 (which I'm not convinced yet) can still work just fine if you have a const string. Please send your CL and we'll take it from there.

…

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Eric Lagergren ***@***.***> wrote: @griesemer <https://github.com/griesemer> thanks for clarifying it for me. I'll submit a CL if you want, but if CL 38255 is gonna go through then it doesn't seem like there's any point to change it to a const string since it'll just get changed back. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#19445 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIIkT-dPoThdFYv3xj6s9kZFNs_B_3v3ks5rmaSRgaJpZM4MWGfA> .

gopherbot · 2017-03-22T10:31:17Z

CL https://golang.org/cl/38255 mentions this issue.

Benchmark results for GOARCH=amd64: name old time/op new time/op delta FormatInt-4 2.51µs ± 2% 2.40µs ± 2% -4.51% (p=0.000 n=9+10) AppendInt-4 1.67µs ± 2% 1.61µs ± 3% -3.74% (p=0.000 n=9+9) FormatUint-4 698ns ± 2% 643ns ± 3% -7.95% (p=0.000 n=10+8) AppendUint-4 478ns ± 1% 418ns ± 2% -12.61% (p=0.000 n=8+10) AppendUintVarlen/1-4 9.30ns ± 6% 9.15ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.199 n=9+10) AppendUintVarlen/12-4 9.12ns ± 0% 9.16ns ± 2% ~ (p=0.307 n=9+9) AppendUintVarlen/123-4 18.6ns ± 2% 18.7ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.091 n=10+6) AppendUintVarlen/1234-4 19.1ns ± 4% 17.7ns ± 1% -7.35% (p=0.000 n=10+9) AppendUintVarlen/12345-4 21.5ns ± 3% 20.7ns ± 3% -3.78% (p=0.002 n=9+10) AppendUintVarlen/123456-4 23.5ns ± 3% 20.9ns ± 1% -11.14% (p=0.000 n=10+9) AppendUintVarlen/1234567-4 25.0ns ± 2% 23.6ns ± 7% -5.48% (p=0.004 n=9+10) AppendUintVarlen/12345678-4 26.8ns ± 2% 23.4ns ± 2% -12.79% (p=0.000 n=9+10) AppendUintVarlen/123456789-4 29.8ns ± 3% 26.5ns ± 5% -11.03% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890-4 31.6ns ± 3% 26.9ns ± 3% -14.95% (p=0.000 n=10+9) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901-4 33.8ns ± 3% 29.3ns ± 5% -13.21% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/123456789012-4 35.5ns ± 4% 29.2ns ± 4% -17.82% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890123-4 37.6ns ± 4% 31.4ns ± 3% -16.48% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901234-4 39.8ns ± 6% 32.0ns ± 7% -19.60% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/123456789012345-4 40.7ns ± 0% 34.4ns ± 4% -15.55% (p=0.000 n=6+10) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890123456-4 45.4ns ± 6% 35.1ns ± 4% -22.66% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901234567-4 45.1ns ± 1% 36.7ns ± 4% -18.77% (p=0.000 n=9+10) AppendUintVarlen/123456789012345678-4 46.9ns ± 0% 36.4ns ± 3% -22.49% (p=0.000 n=9+10) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890123456789-4 50.6ns ± 6% 38.8ns ± 3% -23.28% (p=0.000 n=10+10) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901234567890-4 51.3ns ± 2% 38.4ns ± 0% -25.00% (p=0.000 n=9+8) Benchmark results for GOARCH=386: name old time/op new time/op delta FormatInt-4 6.21µs ± 0% 6.14µs ± 0% -1.11% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendInt-4 4.95µs ± 0% 4.85µs ± 0% -1.99% (p=0.016 n=5+4) FormatUint-4 1.89µs ± 1% 1.83µs ± 1% -2.94% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUint-4 1.59µs ± 0% 1.57µs ± 2% -1.72% (p=0.040 n=5+5) FormatIntSmall-4 8.48ns ± 0% 8.48ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.905 n=5+5) AppendIntSmall-4 12.2ns ± 0% 12.2ns ± 0% ~ (all equal) AppendUintVarlen/1-4 10.6ns ± 1% 10.7ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.238 n=5+4) AppendUintVarlen/12-4 10.7ns ± 0% 10.7ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.333 n=4+5) AppendUintVarlen/123-4 29.9ns ± 1% 30.2ns ± 0% +1.07% (p=0.016 n=5+4) AppendUintVarlen/1234-4 32.4ns ± 1% 30.4ns ± 0% -6.30% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/12345-4 35.1ns ± 2% 34.9ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.238 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/123456-4 36.6ns ± 0% 35.3ns ± 0% -3.55% (p=0.029 n=4+4) AppendUintVarlen/1234567-4 38.9ns ± 0% 39.6ns ± 0% +1.80% (p=0.029 n=4+4) AppendUintVarlen/12345678-4 41.3ns ± 0% 40.1ns ± 0% -2.91% (p=0.000 n=5+4) AppendUintVarlen/123456789-4 44.9ns ± 1% 44.8ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.667 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890-4 65.6ns ± 0% 66.2ns ± 1% +0.88% (p=0.016 n=4+5) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901-4 77.9ns ± 0% 76.3ns ± 0% -2.00% (p=0.000 n=4+5) AppendUintVarlen/123456789012-4 80.7ns ± 0% 79.1ns ± 1% -2.01% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890123-4 83.6ns ± 0% 80.2ns ± 1% -4.07% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901234-4 86.2ns ± 1% 83.3ns ± 0% -3.39% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/123456789012345-4 88.5ns ± 0% 83.7ns ± 0% -5.42% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890123456-4 90.6ns ± 0% 88.3ns ± 0% -2.54% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901234567-4 92.7ns ± 0% 89.0ns ± 1% -4.01% (p=0.008 n=5+5) AppendUintVarlen/123456789012345678-4 95.6ns ± 1% 92.6ns ± 0% -3.18% (p=0.016 n=5+4) AppendUintVarlen/1234567890123456789-4 118ns ± 0% 114ns ± 0% ~ (p=0.079 n=4+5) AppendUintVarlen/12345678901234567890-4 138ns ± 0% 136ns ± 0% -1.45% (p=0.008 n=5+5) Updates #19445 Change-Id: Iafbe5c074898187c150dc3854e5b9fc19c10be05 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/38255 Run-TryBot: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>

josharian added the Performance label Mar 7, 2017

gopherbot closed this as completed in bc8b9b2 Mar 16, 2017

golang locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 22, 2018

gopherbot added the FrozenDueToAge label Mar 22, 2018

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

strconv: consider speeding up formatting of small integers with cache #19445

strconv: consider speeding up formatting of small integers with cache #19445

ericlagergren commented Mar 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

josharian commented Mar 7, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

gopherbot commented Mar 9, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 9, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 9, 2017 via email

dlsniper commented Mar 16, 2017

mvdan commented Mar 16, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017

mvdan commented Mar 16, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

mvdan commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017

griesemer commented Mar 16, 2017 via email

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017

griesemer commented Mar 16, 2017 via email •

edited

Loading

gopherbot commented Mar 22, 2017

strconv: consider speeding up formatting of small integers with cache #19445

strconv: consider speeding up formatting of small integers with cache #19445

Comments

ericlagergren commented Mar 7, 2017 • edited Loading

What version of Go are you using (go version)?

What operating system and processor architecture are you using (go env)?

What, why, etc.

josharian commented Mar 7, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 7, 2017 • edited Loading

gopherbot commented Mar 9, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 9, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 9, 2017 via email

dlsniper commented Mar 16, 2017

mvdan commented Mar 16, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017 • edited Loading

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017

mvdan commented Mar 16, 2017

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

mvdan commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017 • edited Loading

bradfitz commented Mar 16, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017

griesemer commented Mar 16, 2017 via email

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017

griesemer commented Mar 16, 2017 via email • edited Loading

gopherbot commented Mar 22, 2017

ericlagergren commented Mar 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

What version of Go are you using (`go version`)?

What operating system and processor architecture are you using (`go env`)?

ericlagergren commented Mar 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ericlagergren commented Mar 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

griesemer commented Mar 16, 2017 via email •

edited

Loading