Hey everyone! :)
I was recently looking at the source for *get-in* to check if it would exit
early as soon as a key was not present in the nested maps.
The source for quick reference:
(defn get-in
"Returns the value in a nested associative structure,
where ks is a sequence of keys. Returns nil if the key
is not present, or the not-found value if supplied."
{:added "1.2"
:static true}
([m ks]
(reduce1 get m ks))
([m ks not-found]
(loop [sentinel (Object.)
m m
ks (seq ks)]
(if ks
(let [m (get m (first ks) sentinel)]
(if (identical? sentinel m)
not-found
(recur sentinel m (next ks))))
m))))
I noticed that the 2-arity variant does not exit early, but the 3-arity
variant does. Also looking at the implementation of *reduce1* vs the
implementation of the 3-arity variant of *get-in* got me thinking if it
wouldn't be slightly more efficient to just implement the 2-arity variant
by calling the 3-arity variant, eg:
([m ks]
(get-in m ks nil))
I've run a few micro benchmarks comparing speeds of the 2-arity and 3-arity
variant using *criterium* and the 3-arity variant seems to be more
efficient even if it can't exit early.
Below are a few of the criterium benchmarks I did on my laptop:
(crit/bench (get-in {} [:a :b]))
Evaluation count : 1874799960 in 60 samples of 31246666 calls.
Execution time mean : 32.013948 ns
Execution time std-deviation : 1.172814 ns
Execution time lower quantile : 29.839525 ns ( 2.5%)
Execution time upper quantile : 34.283877 ns (97.5%)
Overhead used : 2.189987 ns
Found 17 outliers in 60 samples (28.3333 %)
low-severe 13 (21.6667 %)
low-mild 4 (6.6667 %)
Variance from outliers : 23.7873 % Variance is moderately inflated by
outliers
(crit/bench (get-in {} [:a :b] nil))
Evaluation count : 4071018060 in 60 samples of 67850301 calls.
Execution time mean : 15.124086 ns
Execution time std-deviation : 1.492542 ns
Execution time lower quantile : 12.488672 ns ( 2.5%)
Execution time upper quantile : 17.908223 ns (97.5%)
Overhead used : 2.189987 ns
Found 1 outliers in 60 samples (1.6667 %)
low-severe 1 (1.6667 %)
Variance from outliers : 68.6898 % Variance is severely inflated by
outliers
(crit/bench (get-in {:a {:b {:c 1}}} [:a :b :c]))
Evaluation count : 1034704440 in 60 samples of 17245074 calls.
Execution time mean : 58.600293 ns
Execution time std-deviation : 2.939752 ns
Execution time lower quantile : 55.782160 ns ( 2.5%)
Execution time upper quantile : 64.772887 ns (97.5%)
Overhead used : 2.189987 ns
Found 2 outliers in 60 samples (3.3333 %)
low-severe 2 (3.3333 %)
Variance from outliers : 36.8128 % Variance is moderately inflated by
outliers
(crit/bench (get-in {:a {:b {:c 1}}} [:a :b :c] nil))
Evaluation count : 1359247260 in 60 samples of 22654121 calls.
Execution time mean : 42.744780 ns
Execution time std-deviation : 3.356838 ns
Execution time lower quantile : 39.571655 ns ( 2.5%)
Execution time upper quantile : 48.841751 ns (97.5%)
Overhead used : 2.189987 ns
Found 1 outliers in 60 samples (1.6667 %)
low-severe 1 (1.6667 %)
Variance from outliers : 58.4799 % Variance is severely inflated by
outliers
While I can imagine that changing the implementation of the 2-arity variant
would barely bring noticeable improvements to projects, I also can't see
much of a reason not to change it. It doesn't make the code less readable
or maintainable. It just makes performance for both arities consistently
good.
What would be pros and cons of such a change that I don't see at the moment?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clojure/0e2c0699-8c84-422b-a3ce-5123cd033e5d%40googlegroups.com.
