On top of these changes, replacing the hash function with Chez's `equal-hash` saves another 50ms. That gets the runtime down to around 900ms on my machine, including Racket startup time. Ignoring startup time, this version beats the `simple.c` implementation in the original repo by about 50ms (800ms vs 850ms).
https://gist.github.com/Bogdanp/b9256e1a91de9083830cb616b3659ff8 Gustavo Massaccesi writes: > With two additional tricks I saved like 100ms. > > * Saving the output port instead of reading the parameter implicitly each > time. > > * Replacing (write (cdr p)) with (write-fx cdr p)) where > > (define (write-fx n [o (current-output-port)]) > ; TODO: Add negatives :) > (if (fx> n 0) > (let loop ([n n]) > (when (fx> n 10) > (loop (fxquotient n 10))) > (write-byte (fx+ 48 (fxremainder n 10)) o)) > (write-byte 48 o))) > > and at the end of a program something like > > (define o (current-output-port)) > (time (for ([p (in-vector items)] > #:break (not (pair? p))) > (write-bytes (car p) o) > (write-byte 32 o) > (write-fx (cdr p) o) > (write-byte 10 o))) ; and a closing ) > > Gustavo > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:22 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I went from numbers around 1000 ms to 950 ms to 900 ms. There was >> variance around those numbers, but it was pretty consistent. >> >> For more precise answers, there are a few things you can try. One is >> to measure instructions instead of time (ie, with perf). Another is to >> run it a bunch of times and take an average. The `hyperfine` tool is >> good for that. But probably the best advice is to make the program >> take longer so differences are more apparent -- variation usually >> increases sub-linearly. >> >> Sam >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:17 PM Laurent <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Sam: How do you accurately measure such small speed-ups? On my machines, >> if I run the same program twice, I can sometimes see more than 10% time >> difference. >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:10 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Use `#:authentic`, and `unsafe-vector*-{ref,set!}` saved about 50 more >> >> ms on my machine. >> >> >> >> Then getting rid of `set!` and just re-binding the relevant variables >> >> produced another 50 ms speedup. >> >> >> >> https://gist.github.com/7fc52e7bdc327fb59c8858a42258c26a >> >> >> >> Sam >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:21 AM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > One minor additional suggestion: if you use #:authentic for the >> struct, it will generate slightly better code for the accessors. >> >> > >> >> > Sam >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:18 AM Bogdan Popa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I updated the gist with some cleanups and additional improvements >> that >> >> >> get the runtime down to a little over 1s (vs ~350ms for the >> optimized C >> >> >> and Rust code) on my maxed-out 2019 MBP and ~600ms on my M1 Mac Mini. >> >> >> >> >> >> Pawel Mosakowski writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hi Bogdan, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This is a brilliant solution and also completely over my head. It >> finishes >> >> >> > in ~3.75s on my PC and is faster than the Python version which >> basically >> >> >> > delegates all the work to C. I will need to spend some time on >> >> >> > understanding it but I am looking forward to learning something >> new. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Many thanks, >> >> >> > Pawel >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 7:22:10 PM UTC bogdan wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I managed to get it about as fast as Python by making it really >> >> >> >> imperative and rolling my own hash: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://gist.github.com/Bogdanp/fb39d202037cdaadd55dae3d45737571 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sam Tobin-Hochstadt writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Here are several variants of the code: >> >> >> >> > https://gist.github.com/d6fbe3757c462d5b4d1d9393b72f9ab9 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The enabled version is about the fastest I can get without using >> >> >> >> > `unsafe` (which the rules said not to do). It's possible to >> optimize a >> >> >> >> > tiny bit more by avoiding sorting, but only a few milliseconds >> -- it >> >> >> >> > would be more significant if there were more different words. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Switching to bytes works correctly for the given task, but >> wouldn't >> >> >> >> > always work in the case of general UTF8 input. But those >> versions >> >> >> >> > appeared not be faster for me. Also, writing my own >> string-downcase >> >> >> >> > didn't help. And using a big buffer and doing my own newline >> splitting >> >> >> >> > didn't help either. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The version using just a regexp matching on a port (suggested by >> >> >> >> > Robby) turned out not to be faster either, so my suspicion is >> that the >> >> >> >> > original slowness is just using regexps for splitting words. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Sam >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:28 AM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's a somewhat-optimized version of the code: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> #lang racket/base >> >> >> >> >> (require racket/string racket/vector racket/port) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (define h (make-hash)) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (time >> >> >> >> >> (for* ([l (in-lines)] >> >> >> >> >> [w (in-list (string-split l))] >> >> >> >> >> [w* (in-value (string-downcase w))]) >> >> >> >> >> (hash-update! h w* add1 0))) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (define v >> >> >> >> >> (time >> >> >> >> >> (for/vector #:length (hash-count h) >> >> >> >> >> ([(k v) (in-hash h)]) >> >> >> >> >> (cons k v)))) >> >> >> >> >> (time (vector-sort! v > #:key cdr)) >> >> >> >> >> (define p (current-output-port) #;(open-output-nowhere)) >> >> >> >> >> (time >> >> >> >> >> (for ([pair (in-vector v)]) >> >> >> >> >> (write-string (car pair) p) >> >> >> >> >> (write-string (number->string (cdr pair)) p) >> >> >> >> >> (newline p))) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's much more imperative, but also pretty nice and compact. >> The >> >> >> >> >> `printf` optimization is significant for that portion of the >> program, >> >> >> >> >> but that isn't much of the running time. The overall running >> time for >> >> >> >> >> 10 copies of the KJV is about 9 seconds on my laptop. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think the remaining difference between Racket and other >> languages is >> >> >> >> >> likely the `string-split` and `string-downcase` functions, >> plus the >> >> >> >> >> relatively-inefficient string representation that Racket uses. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:28 AM Pawel Mosakowski < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Hi David, >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Yes, the 21 seconds includes the interpreter startup time. I >> have >> >> >> >> done a simple test to see how long it takes: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > $ time racket -e '(displayln "Hello, world")' >> >> >> >> >> > Hello, world >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > real 0m0.479s >> >> >> >> >> > user 0m0.449s >> >> >> >> >> > sys 0m0.030s >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > I have also put my code inside a main function and profiled >> it: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Profiling results >> >> >> >> >> > ----------------- >> >> >> >> >> > Total cpu time observed: 20910ms (out of 20970ms) >> >> >> >> >> > Number of samples taken: 382 (once every 55ms) >> >> >> >> >> > (Hiding functions with self<1.0% and local<2.0%: 1 of 12 >> hidden) >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> ============================================================== >> >> >> >> >> > Caller >> >> >> >> >> > Idx Total Self Name+src Local% >> >> >> >> >> > ms(pct) ms(pct) Callee >> >> >> >> >> > >> ============================================================== >> >> >> >> >> > [1] 20910(100.0%) 0(0.0%) [running body] >> >> >> >> ...word-occurences-profile.rkt":##f >> >> >> >> >> > profile-thunk [2] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > [running body] [1] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [2] 20910(100.0%) 0(0.0%) profile-thunk >> >> >> >> ...ket/pkgs/profile-lib/main.rkt:9:0 >> >> >> >> >> > run [3] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > profile-thunk [2] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [3] 20910(100.0%) 0(0.0%) run >> >> >> >> ...share/racket/pkgs/profile-lib/main.rkt:39:2 >> >> >> >> >> > main [4] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > run [3] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [4] 20910(100.0%) 50(0.2%) main >> >> >> >> ...cket/count-word-occurences-profile.rkt:5:0 >> >> >> >> >> > read-from-stdin-it [5] 98.5% >> >> >> >> >> > ??? [6] 0.2% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > main [4] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [5] 20606(98.5%) 11796(56.4%) read-from-stdin-it >> >> >> >> ...-occurences-profile.rkt:19:6 >> >> >> >> >> > internal-split [7] 42.8% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > main [4] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [6] 51(0.2%) 0(0.0%) ??? >> >> >> >> ...cket/collects/racket/private/sort.rkt:369:3 >> >> >> >> >> > generic-sort/key [8] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > read-from-stdin-it [5]100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [7] 8810(42.1%) 3528(16.9%) internal-split >> >> >> >> ...collects/racket/string.rkt:117:0 >> >> >> >> >> > regexp-split [9] 59.9% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > ??? [6] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [8] 51(0.2%) 0(0.0%) generic-sort/key >> >> >> >> .../racket/private/sort.rkt:156:2 >> >> >> >> >> > copying-mergesort [10]100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > internal-split [7] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [9] 5282(25.3%) 2810(13.4%) regexp-split >> >> >> >> ...ts/racket/private/string.rkt:338:2 >> >> >> >> >> > loop [11] 46.8% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > generic-sort/key [8] 10.0% >> >> >> >> >> > copying-mergesort [10] 90.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [10] 51(0.2%) 51(0.2%) copying-mergesort >> >> >> >> ...racket/private/sort.rkt:129:8 >> >> >> >> >> > copying-mergesort [10] 90.0% >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > regexp-split [9] 100.0% >> >> >> >> >> > [11] 2471(11.8%) 2471(11.8%) loop >> >> >> >> ...t/collects/racket/private/string.rkt:169:7 >> >> >> >> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Kind regards, >> >> >> >> >> > Pawel >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 2:09:35 PM UTC >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Pawel, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll take a look at the code later, but did that 21 seconds >> include >> >> >> >> startup time for the interpreter? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 9:24 AM Pawel Mosakowski < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hello, >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I am a Racket beginner and I have come across this article: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> https://benhoyt.com/writings/count-words/ >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> This is my attempt at solving the challenge: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> https://pastebin.com/kL16w5Hc >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> However when I have benchmarked it, it takes ~21 seconds >> to run >> >> >> >> compared to the Python and Ruby versions which take around 3-4 >> seconds. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I understand that both Ruby and Python probably have the >> string >> >> >> >> operations and hash tables implemented in optimized C but is >> there anything >> >> >> >> I can do to improve performance of my program? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Many thanks for all help and suggestions. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >> >> >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> the Google >> >> >> >> Groups "Racket Users" group. >> >> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> from it, >> >> >> >> send an email to [email protected]. >> >> >> >> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/118c1340-66d1-421d-92a4-6b66c56cb88fn%40googlegroups.com >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >> >> >> Groups "Racket Users" group. >> >> >> >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> from it, >> >> >> >> send an email to [email protected]. >> >> >> >> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/09c58a34-bd2d-49e7-bfbd-d3253c1e6dd1n%40googlegroups.com >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Racket Users" group. >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to [email protected]. >> >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/m2r1kb30qh.fsf%40192.168.0.142 >> . >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Racket Users" group. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an email to [email protected]. >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2Bbd3w-zGTC5uUUSL%3DVz97%3DkSi8WpQA%2BvcFS_0ZA9S%2BM7A%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Racket Users" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an email to [email protected]. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CABNTSaGuT%3DN7f6x6VGyDBrjrAohgEh7PhzecMiCwVy2ae%3DRmzw%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Racket Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BYCpRmnsYCDt%3DeoVQvEz2VbLmo_JKtky9ZtxuSJB65s4Q%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/m25z1lh9cm.fsf%40defn.io.
