Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #19076

closed

Improve performance Proc#parameters

Added by S_H_ (Shun Hiraoka) over 1 year ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
Closed
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:110478]

Description

Improve performance Proc#parameters method(write in Ruby)

benchmark:

prelude: |
  prc = proc{|x, y=42, *other|}
  lam = lambda{|x, y=42, *other|}
benchmark:
  proc_no_kwarg: |
    prc.parameters
  proc_given_kwarg: |
    prc.parameters(lambda: false)
  lambda_no_kwarg: |    
    prc.parameters
  lambda_given_kwarg: |
    prc.parameters(lambda: false)
loop_count: 20000000

result:

sh@DESKTOP-L0NI312:~/rubydev/build$ make benchmark/benchmark.yml -e BENCH_RUBY=../install/bin/ruby -e COMPARE_RUBY=~/.rbenv/shims/ruby
../ruby/revision.h unchanged
compare-ruby: ruby 3.2.0dev (2022-10-22T10:34:00Z master 8dfe3bdf48) [x86_64-linux]
built-ruby: ruby 3.2.0dev (2022-10-22T10:34:00Z improve_prom_param.. 8dfe3bdf48) [x86_64-linux]
# Iteration per second (i/s)

|                    |compare-ruby|built-ruby|
|:-------------------|-----------:|---------:|
|proc_no_kwarg       |      4.559M|    3.944M|
|                    |       1.16x|         -|
|proc_given_kwarg    |      2.885M|    3.652M|
|                    |           -|     1.27x|
|lambda_no_kwarg     |      4.732M|    3.800M|
|                    |       1.25x|         -|
|lambda_given_kwarg  |      2.858M|    3.603M|
|                    |           -|     1.26x|

COMPARE_RUBY is ruby 3.2.0dev (2022-10-22T10:34:00Z master 8dfe3bdf48) [x86_64-linux]. BENCH_RUBY is ahead of ruby 3.2.0dev (2022-10-22T10:34:00Z master 8dfe3bdf48) [x86_64-linux].

pull request: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6617

Actions #1

Updated by S_H_ (Shun Hiraoka) over 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from Improve performance `Proc#parameters` to Improve performance Proc#parameters
Actions #2

Updated by S_H_ (Shun Hiraoka) over 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) over 1 year ago

If I'm reading the benchmark results correctly, this is slower in the case that the keyword argument is not provided. Is that correct? If so, I don't think we should do this, because it is far more common to not provide a keyword argument when calling these methods.

Updated by S_H_ (Shun Hiraoka) over 1 year ago

Sorry, I checked benchmark and it seems to always be slower then don't pass keyword arguments

Therefore, you may close this ticket.

Actions #5

Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Open to Closed
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF

Like1
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0