Tests to see the efficiency of various approches to implementing bitmaps used for finding set elements.
Imagine the earlier test I did for bitmap intersections (https://github.com/art4711/bmap), but now we need to find out which bits were actually set after the intersection.
We have a large amount of unique objects that we can easily enumerate. We need to be able to make a set of some of those objects and pass them around in our program. The obvious implementation for this is an array. But at a certain point collecting the objects into an array takes too much memory and becomes too slow. This is especially interesting when performing unions and intersections between sets. Storing the enumerations of those objects into a bitmap can save memory and make unions and intersections faster. It's cheap to populate a bitmap from an array and we can then extract the relevant elements from the bitmap sorted and deduplicated (relevant for unions).
Bitmaps also have very predictable memory usage. If you know that your objects are numbered between 0 and X, you need X/8 bytes of memory for the bitmap. Collecting the objects into an array requires resizing the array, which leads to copies, which while it's called "amortized O(1)" is expensive in practice anyway. Cache isn't free.
So bitmaps have very nice properties. But they do have a problem. If the number of elements we will collect into a set isn't known in advance or hard to estimate we can end up with a very sparse bitmap. Other than wasting space there's also a problem of iterating over all the set bits in it.
Bitmaps happen to fit perfectly for an application I'm working on, but we've always had a problem to estimate how dense a set will become and when to switch between a sorted array and a bitmap. In one use case we made up an estimate and then moved it around until all benchmarks agreed. The worry is that this is dependent on our particular use case at this time and might not be true later.
So we need to figure out a data structure that's space and time efficient to populate, but also allows for efficient traversal.
-
alloc/free - Allocate and free the bitmap
-
set - Sets one bit in the bitmap
-
isset - Check if the bit is set (this is just a helper function that I needed to implement to actually generate the "random" data we're testing with).
-
first_set(b) - This is the meat of the test. Find the first set bit in the bitmap that is equal to or larger than
b.
The bitmaps only need to handle up to 2^32 bits.
I've been debating adding a foreach function, but it doesn't really
matter for my application and can be trivially implemented as:
last = 0;
while ((last = first_set(last)) != INVALID)
last++;
Which will be almost as effcient (minus some savings we can get from
not having to recalculate some offsets in first_set).
The bitmap is just an array of 64 bit elements. alloc, free, set
and isset are trivial. first_set checks every bit starting from
b until it finds one set bit.
Same as dumb except that first_set now checks a whole 64 bit word
at a time until it finds a non-zero one. This implementation depends
on the compiler providing __builtin_ffsll which both gcc and clang
do.
6 levels of bitmaps. The lowest level (5), is a normal bitmap with 64 bit slots. The levels above are bitmaps indicating which of the slots in the next level are not zero. The idea is that this allows us to take bigger strides forward when traversing sparse bitmaps.
Same as p64-naive, but with a particular optimization in first_set
that allow us to quickly find matches in dense bitmaps.
Same as p64, but with cleaner code.
Like p64 but upside down and with a dynamic number of levels.
Like p64v3 but with first_set implemented recursively.
Loke p64v2r, but testing two different ways of starting the
recursion.
We populate a bitmap from an array of elements.
We walk the bitmap by:
last = 0;
while ((last = first_set(last)) != INVALID)
last++;
and check that the returned elements match the elements of the array we used to populate the bitmap.
I haven't polished the sizes of the sets or been too ambitious in generating many sets, but the current results show what I need to know. If someone has a different use case, feel free to add tests and make a pull request. The most interesting case here would probably be to add a set with many clusters and large mostly empty areas between.
I'm aware that 25 million isn't that "huge", but it's all I needed to
know and the dumb and simple implementations take too long to run
on larger bitmaps.
10 bits set in a space of 1000 possible bits.
100 set, 1M space.
10k in 1M
0.5M in 1M
10 in 10M
10 in 25M
There are no relevant units here, we could calculate the time various implementations spend per bit, but that's not as interesting as how much faster/slower various operations are on the different implementations. The only relevant thing is how the different implementations compare.
The reference implementation is simple everything is compared to it.
There shouldn't be any difference between simple and dumb here,
they both use the exact same code.
dumb-huge-sparse-populate vs. simple-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/dumb-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 1e-06 0 3e-08 1.7144661e-07
+ 100 0 1e-06 0 2e-08 1.4070529e-07
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
dumb-large-sparse-populate vs. simple-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/dumb-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 1e-06 0 8e-08 2.7265992e-07
+ 100 0 0.000135 0 1.66e-06 1.3476669e-05
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
dumb-mid-dense-populate vs. simple-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/simple-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/dumb-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.110867 0.144534 0.120212 0.12173365 0.0068416292
+ 100 0.112454 0.140728 0.118668 0.11940546 0.0042432277
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00232819 +/- 0.00187258
-1.91253% +/- 1.53826%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00569267)
dumb-mid-mid-populate vs. simple-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/simple-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/dumb-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.002087 0.004113 0.002303 0.00238652 0.0003583565
+ 100 0.00207 0.004117 0.002306 0.00250836 0.0004883469
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
dumb-mid-sparse-populate vs. simple-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/dumb-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2.2e-05 7.2e-05 2.8e-05 2.827e-05 7.7157258e-06
+ 100 2.1e-05 7.5e-05 2.6e-05 2.736e-05 9.0033888e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
dumb-small-sparse-populate vs. simple-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/dumb-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.002195 0.003058 0.002324 0.00236736 0.00016493075
+ 100 0.002202 0.003485 0.002331 0.00242904 0.00025802247
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
ministat sees a difference, but this is due to the machine I'm running this on being noisy and the resolution of the timers sucks. But this basically tells us that differences of 2% are just noise (or I should have used a higher confidence).
It's much more interesting to compare to p64 (this is exactly the
same as p64-naive +/- noise).
p64-huge-sparse-populate vs. simple-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 1e-06 0 3e-08 1.7144661e-07
+ 100 0 2.8e-05 1e-06 8.5e-07 2.7866021e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
8.2e-07 +/- 6.49389e-07
2733.33% +/- 2164.63%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.97415e-06)
p64-large-sparse-populate vs. simple-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 1e-06 0 8e-08 2.7265992e-07
+ 100 1e-06 2.7e-05 1e-06 1.26e-06 2.6e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
1.18e-06 +/- 6.08076e-07
1475% +/- 760.095%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.84856e-06)
p64-mid-dense-populate vs. simple-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/simple-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p64-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.110867 0.144534 0.120212 0.12173365 0.0068416292
+ 100 0.362134 0.410082 0.378707 0.37947826 0.0094957551
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.257745 +/- 0.00272229
211.728% +/- 2.23627%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00827579)
p64-mid-mid-populate vs. simple-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/simple-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p64-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.002087 0.004113 0.002303 0.00238652 0.0003583565
+ 100 0.007243 0.009811 0.007418 0.00760898 0.00049404604
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00522246 +/- 0.000141962
218.832% +/- 5.94851%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000431567)
p64-mid-sparse-populate vs. simple-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2.2e-05 7.2e-05 2.8e-05 2.827e-05 7.7157258e-06
+ 100 7.9e-05 0.000211 7.9e-05 8.748e-05 1.8417975e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
5.921e-05 +/- 4.64475e-06
209.445% +/- 16.43%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.41201e-05)
p64-small-sparse-populate vs. simple-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/simple-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.002195 0.003058 0.002324 0.00236736 0.00016493075
+ 100 0.006885 0.009993 0.007492 0.00752581 0.00048327127
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00515845 +/- 0.000118775
217.899% +/- 5.01719%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000361077)
The large-sparse and huge-sparse tests are mostly useless here. In
the actual result there's one initial cache miss and then the numbers
hover between 0 and 0.000001 after which the measurements are
truncated. This is useless.
But all the other tests show a consistent 3.1-3.2x slowdown. This is expected and actually lower than I feared. This means that the extra cost for p64 won't be in populating the array.
This is where the difference between simple and dumb is.
dumb-huge-sparse-check vs. simple-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/dumb-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000856 0.001234 0.000919 0.00093814 6.6426236e-05
+ 100 0.061269 0.072319 0.064139 0.06462294 0.0025259663
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0636848 +/- 0.000587743
6788.41% +/- 62.6498%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00178675)
dumb-large-sparse-check vs. simple-large-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/dumb-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00076 0.001716 0.000779 0.00083314 0.00013628646
+ 100 0.061537 0.088013 0.064211 0.06494016 0.0031735456
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.064107 +/- 0.000738847
7694.63% +/- 88.6822%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0022461)
dumb-mid-dense-check vs. simple-mid-dense-check
x statdir/simple-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/dumb-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.220685 0.254971 0.228038 0.22901875 0.0054344739
+ 100 0.517313 0.612694 0.534536 0.53653778 0.01114508
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.307519 +/- 0.00288411
134.277% +/- 1.25933%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00876773)
dumb-mid-mid-check vs. simple-mid-mid-check
x statdir/simple-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/dumb-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.010274 0.017926 0.010719 0.01107091 0.0012050884
+ 100 0.07466 0.087193 0.07886 0.07915763 0.0027447457
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0680867 +/- 0.000697252
615.006% +/- 6.29805%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00211965)
dumb-mid-sparse-check vs. simple-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/dumb-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00084 0.002878 0.000974 0.0009775 0.00021171357
+ 100 0.063333 0.071094 0.067018 0.06718423 0.0018533315
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0662067 +/- 0.000433888
6773.07% +/- 44.3876%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00131903)
dumb-small-sparse-check vs. simple-small-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/dumb-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.004232 0.00537 0.004442 0.00451139 0.00025890527
+ 100 0.070262 0.08348 0.074601 0.07486289 0.0025231068
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0703515 +/- 0.000589956
1559.42% +/- 13.077%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00179347)
Since simple checks 64 bits at a time we expect it to be up to that faster.
The mid-dense set is insteresting here since it shows the smallest
difference. The reason for this is that it is a very densely populated set,
every other bit on average is set. But even here simple wins by a large
margin.
Now, this is where the interesting part comes.
p64-naive-huge-sparse-check vs. simple-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000856 0.001234 0.000919 0.00093814 6.6426236e-05
+ 100 2e-06 1.1e-05 3e-06 2.82e-06 1.2978615e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00093532 +/- 1.54537e-05
-99.6994% +/- 1.64727%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.69794e-05)
p64-naive-large-sparse-check vs. simple-large-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00076 0.001716 0.000779 0.00083314 0.00013628646
+ 100 7e-06 7e-06 7e-06 7e-06 4.7496812e-13
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00082614 +/- 3.17002e-05
-99.1598% +/- 3.80491%
(Student's t, pooled s = 9.63691e-05)
p64-naive-mid-dense-check vs. simple-mid-dense-check
x statdir/simple-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.220685 0.254971 0.228038 0.22901875 0.0054344739
+ 100 1.829034 1.952014 1.854075 1.8571515 0.018700907
Difference at 98.0% confidence
1.62813 +/- 0.00452978
710.917% +/- 1.97791%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0137706)
p64-naive-mid-mid-check vs. simple-mid-mid-check
x statdir/simple-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.010274 0.017926 0.010719 0.01107091 0.0012050884
+ 100 0.044361 0.05183 0.045599 0.04621578 0.0015895634
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0351449 +/- 0.000463974
317.452% +/- 4.19093%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00141049)
p64-naive-mid-sparse-check vs. simple-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00084 0.002878 0.000974 0.0009775 0.00021171357
+ 100 0.000502 0.000652 0.000605 0.00058224 4.2376647e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00039526 +/- 5.02214e-05
-40.4358% +/- 5.13774%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000152674)
p64-naive-small-sparse-check vs. simple-small-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.004232 0.00537 0.004442 0.00451139 0.00025890527
+ 100 0.040855 0.047868 0.043472 0.04350861 0.0015506382
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0389972 +/- 0.000365671
864.417% +/- 8.10551%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00111165)
We can see that for the huge and large sparse bitmaps p64-naive performs exceptionally well. The additional levels that allow us to skip checking large portions of the bitmap kick in and we're so much faster that the measurement resolution and noise make the comparison not much more accurate than "at least two magnitudes better".
Unfortunately we can see serious slowdowns in mid-dense, mid-mid
and small-sparse. Let's see if we can do anything about that. p64
is the attempt to solve some of the problems.
The difference between p64-naive and p64 is just one optimization
in first_set. We add a check that immediately goes to the lowest
level bitmap, to the slot where b is and checks that slot for a
match. This should bring those fast matches to the level of
simple. We don't expect that much improvements for small bitmaps
(the slowdowns for them come from a different problem). So we're
aiming at fixing mid-dense here, nothing else.
p64-huge-sparse-check vs. simple-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000856 0.001234 0.000919 0.00093814 6.6426236e-05
+ 100 2e-06 8e-06 2e-06 2.19e-06 6.7711509e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00093595 +/- 1.54515e-05
-99.7666% +/- 1.64704%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.69729e-05)
p64-large-sparse-check vs. simple-large-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00076 0.001716 0.000779 0.00083314 0.00013628646
+ 100 5e-06 6e-06 5e-06 5.01e-06 1e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00082813 +/- 3.17002e-05
-99.3987% +/- 3.80491%
(Student's t, pooled s = 9.63691e-05)
p64-mid-dense-check vs. simple-mid-dense-check
x statdir/simple-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.220685 0.254971 0.228038 0.22901875 0.0054344739
+ 100 0.244028 0.268154 0.251725 0.25286724 0.0050118328
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0238485 +/- 0.00171954
10.4133% +/- 0.75083%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00522743)
p64-mid-mid-check vs. simple-mid-mid-check
x statdir/simple-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.010274 0.017926 0.010719 0.01107091 0.0012050884
+ 100 0.029802 0.035992 0.030514 0.03097506 0.0012444021
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0199042 +/- 0.000402927
179.788% +/- 3.63951%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0012249)
p64-mid-sparse-check vs. simple-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00084 0.002878 0.000974 0.0009775 0.00021171357
+ 100 0.000427 0.00079 0.000436 0.00046951 7.2605965e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00050799 +/- 5.20599e-05
-51.9683% +/- 5.32583%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000158263)
p64-small-sparse-check vs. simple-small-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.004232 0.00537 0.004442 0.00451139 0.00025890527
+ 100 0.020101 0.025216 0.020607 0.02100451 0.00095730719
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0164931 +/- 0.000230669
365.588% +/- 5.11305%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000701238)
We can see here that mid-dense is indeed fixed and the other cases
improve somewhat too.
Let's compare p64 to p64-naive:
p64-naive-huge-sparse-check vs. p64-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2e-06 8e-06 2e-06 2.19e-06 6.7711509e-07
+ 100 2e-06 1.1e-05 3e-06 2.82e-06 1.2978615e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
6.3e-07 +/- 3.40497e-07
28.7671% +/- 15.5478%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.03512e-06)
p64-naive-large-sparse-check vs. p64-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 5e-06 6e-06 5e-06 5.01e-06 1e-07
+ 100 7e-06 7e-06 7e-06 7e-06 4.7496812e-13
Difference at 98.0% confidence
1.99e-06 +/- 2.326e-08
39.7206% +/- 0.464271%
(Student's t, pooled s = 7.07107e-08)
p64-naive-mid-dense-check vs. p64-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.244028 0.268154 0.251725 0.25286724 0.0050118328
+ 100 1.829034 1.952014 1.854075 1.8571515 0.018700907
Difference at 98.0% confidence
1.60428 +/- 0.00450333
634.437% +/- 1.78091%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0136902)
p64-naive-mid-mid-check vs. p64-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.029802 0.035992 0.030514 0.03097506 0.0012444021
+ 100 0.044361 0.05183 0.045599 0.04621578 0.0015895634
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0152407 +/- 0.000469555
49.2032% +/- 1.51591%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00142745)
p64-naive-mid-sparse-check vs. p64-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000427 0.00079 0.000436 0.00046951 7.2605965e-05
+ 100 0.000502 0.000652 0.000605 0.00058224 4.2376647e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00011273 +/- 1.95542e-05
24.0101% +/- 4.16481%
(Student's t, pooled s = 5.9445e-05)
p64-naive-small-sparse-check vs. p64-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64-naive-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.020101 0.025216 0.020607 0.02100451 0.00095730719
+ 100 0.040855 0.047868 0.043472 0.04350861 0.0015506382
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0225041 +/- 0.000423876
107.139% +/- 2.01802%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00128859)
p64 is faster in all cases. Great. From now on we'll use p64 as
the reference in all comparisons, the goal now is to make something
better than it.
Does cleaning up the code make any difference?
p64v2 is like p64, but with cleaner code (I probably overdid it) with constants and inline functions instead of macros and magic numbers.
The reason for this cleanup is mostly so that I can easier copy and paste the code and just change the names of the functions and constants. The reason for copy and paste is to keep history so that this README makes sense and the measurements are repeatable.
p64v2-huge-sparse-check vs. p64-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v2-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2e-06 1e-05 2e-06 2.18e-06 1.0088497e-06
+ 100 2e-06 4e-06 2e-06 2.5e-06 5.4122943e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
3.2e-07 +/- 2.66295e-07
14.6789% +/- 12.2154%
(Student's t, pooled s = 8.09539e-07)
p64v2-large-sparse-check vs. p64-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v2-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 5e-06 7e-06 6e-06 5.96e-06 4.476651e-07
+ 100 5e-06 7.9e-05 5e-06 6.74e-06 7.5124409e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-mid-dense-check vs. p64-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v2-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.247303 0.271981 0.255494 0.25670123 0.0056335383
+ 100 0.246615 0.275596 0.255562 0.25676922 0.0061277597
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-mid-mid-check vs. p64-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v2-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.030097 0.035698 0.032656 0.03251763 0.0013166318
+ 100 0.029849 0.036222 0.032176 0.03240194 0.0014723703
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-mid-sparse-check vs. p64-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v2-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000427 0.000709 0.000516 0.00051223 5.6771001e-05
+ 100 0.000427 0.000835 0.000481 0.00049829 6.971128e-05
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-small-sparse-check vs. p64-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v2-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.020374 0.025275 0.022104 0.02207814 0.00099609471
+ 100 0.020007 0.024363 0.021987 0.02203621 0.0011344023
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-huge-sparse-populate vs. p64-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v2-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 3.6e-05 0 7.1e-07 3.6743583e-06
+ 100 0 1e-06 0 3.2e-07 4.6882617e-07
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-large-sparse-populate vs. p64-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v2-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 5e-05 1e-06 1.51e-06 4.9e-06
+ 100 1e-06 1e-06 1e-06 1e-06 5.4796965e-14
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-mid-dense-populate vs. p64-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p64v2-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.369172 0.407703 0.379142 0.38095742 0.0079580958
+ 100 0.369351 0.399195 0.381194 0.38223969 0.0067370766
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-mid-mid-populate vs. p64-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/p64-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p64v2-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.007114 0.00988 0.007805 0.00801016 0.00063309448
+ 100 0.007265 0.009959 0.008035 0.00813407 0.00061046892
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v2-mid-sparse-populate vs. p64-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v2-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 6.7e-05 0.000307 8.7e-05 9.535e-05 2.5897769e-05
+ 100 6.9e-05 0.00015 9.8e-05 0.00010305 1.9248705e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
7.7e-06 +/- 7.50548e-06
8.07551% +/- 7.8715%
(Student's t, pooled s = 2.28167e-05)
p64v2-small-sparse-populate vs. p64-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v2-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.006899 0.010581 0.007838 0.00802454 0.00072905221
+ 100 0.007262 0.010879 0.008237 0.00836105 0.00066652532
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00033651 +/- 0.000229765
4.19351% +/- 2.86328%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000698489)
The only relevant differences are in the noisy measurements, so it's probably fine.
p64v3 turns p64 upside down. The full bitmap is now level 0 and
the higher levels are compressed. Also, we now dynamically determine
the number of levels we need, this should help the smaller bitmaps.
p64v3-huge-sparse-check vs. p64-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2e-06 8e-06 2e-06 2.21e-06 8.2013795e-07
+ 100 2e-06 7.3e-05 3e-06 3.4e-06 7.1279787e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3-large-sparse-check vs. p64-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 5e-06 7.6e-05 5e-06 6.13e-06 7.1557775e-06
+ 100 4e-06 8e-05 5e-06 5.88e-06 7.7228246e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3-mid-dense-check vs. p64-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v3-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.250877 0.270462 0.260754 0.26055253 0.0042139472
+ 100 0.244836 0.265103 0.255659 0.25556786 0.004333112
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00498467 +/- 0.0014059
-1.91312% +/- 0.539583%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00427394)
p64v3-mid-mid-check vs. p64-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v3-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.030394 0.035923 0.032744 0.03283831 0.0011910763
+ 100 0.022091 0.027486 0.023936 0.02394106 0.0012042394
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00889725 +/- 0.000393971
-27.0941% +/- 1.19973%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00119768)
p64v3-mid-sparse-check vs. p64-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000429 0.000991 0.000509 0.00052302 9.4357688e-05
+ 100 0.000316 0.000513 0.000369 0.00036993 3.5640533e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00015309 +/- 2.34611e-05
-29.2704% +/- 4.48569%
(Student's t, pooled s = 7.13219e-05)
p64v3-small-sparse-check vs. p64-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.020985 0.025902 0.022692 0.02268463 0.0010345038
+ 100 0.008701 0.011403 0.009639 0.00969347 0.00068409512
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.0129912 +/- 0.000288479
-57.2686% +/- 1.27169%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000876979)
p64v3-huge-sparse-populate vs. p64-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 3.1e-05 0 4.9e-07 3.43039e-06
+ 100 0 1e-05 1e-06 1.15e-06 1.3734495e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3-large-sparse-populate vs. p64-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 3e-05 1e-06 1.39e-06 3.0281341e-06
+ 100 1e-06 1.1e-05 2e-06 1.75e-06 1.0480863e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3-mid-dense-populate vs. p64-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p64v3-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.376682 0.406025 0.390308 0.39024369 0.0066664778
+ 100 0.450944 0.493576 0.463086 0.46373317 0.0072193309
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0734895 +/- 0.00228565
18.8317% +/- 0.585698%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00694841)
p64v3-mid-mid-populate vs. p64-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/p64-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p64v3-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.007155 0.010699 0.00783 0.00805934 0.00070068808
+ 100 0.008651 0.011676 0.009687 0.00978862 0.00070914294
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00172928 +/- 0.000231883
21.4568% +/- 2.8772%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000704928)
p64v3-mid-sparse-populate vs. p64-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 7.9e-05 0.000152 8.8e-05 9.887e-05 1.9319564e-05
+ 100 9.4e-05 0.000233 0.000131 0.00013446 3.1389511e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
3.559e-05 +/- 8.57328e-06
35.9968% +/- 8.67127%
(Student's t, pooled s = 2.60629e-05)
p64v3-small-sparse-populate vs. p64-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.007201 0.009969 0.008029 0.00819803 0.00064610595
+ 100 0.005819 0.008778 0.006389 0.00663745 0.00065427403
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00156058 +/- 0.000213882
-19.036% +/- 2.60894%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000650203)
As expected, this helps small-sparse, mid-sparse and mid-mid
which were the sets that needed help (see the tests for p64-naive
vs. simple). Unfortunately populate becomes even slower.
The for loop in all p64* first_set had code smell. I really didn't
like the adding/subtracting 2 from l just to backtrack. It worked but
it was surprising and ugly. With p64v3 the loop made even less sense.
we're iterating down from pb->levels - 1 ugh. This would look much
cleaner with recursion. p64v3r is the recursive implementation.
The code works like this: We find our slot, mask out all bits that we
aren't allowed to match (just like before), if the masked out slot is
zero it means that the higher levels led us to a false positive (we
masked out bits that were set), this means that we have to backtrack
to higher level (this is the l += 2 in the for loop versions). If we
have a hit, go down to a lower level.
Hit when level is 0, means we have a result. Backtrack when we're at the top level already means we have a negative result.
Each level we go up or down we adjust b to the lowest possible value
it can have.
This also leads the a surprising algorithm change. p64 and all
subsequent p64* started with checking the full bitmap to optimize
dense bitmaps, if that optimization missed we started at the top level
and went down (backtracking as necessary). But the recursion shows us
that it's equally valid to start at the bitmap level and let the
recursion handle going back to the top level if it thinks it's
necessary. At this point the difference between the two approaches
hasn't been tested, the recursion just made "start at 0 and backtrack
as necessary" the more natural implementation.
Comparing against p64v3:
p64v3r-huge-sparse-check vs. p64v3-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2e-06 1.7e-05 2e-06 2.19e-06 1.5088627e-06
+ 100 1e-06 9e-06 1e-06 1.23e-06 8.6287047e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-9.6e-07 +/- 4.04297e-07
-43.8356% +/- 18.461%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.22907e-06)
p64v3r-large-sparse-check vs. p64v3-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 4e-06 6e-06 5e-06 4.67e-06 6.5219133e-07
+ 100 3e-06 1.9e-05 3e-06 3.49e-06 2.0024984e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-1.18e-06 +/- 4.89862e-07
-25.2677% +/- 10.4896%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.48919e-06)
p64v3r-mid-dense-check vs. p64v3-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.247342 0.327149 0.256359 0.25739302 0.0082802183
+ 100 0.284968 0.308148 0.295692 0.29589157 0.0054489201
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0384986 +/- 0.00230559
14.9571% +/- 0.895747%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00700902)
p64v3r-mid-mid-check vs. p64v3-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.022475 0.026862 0.023973 0.02408233 0.00099462302
+ 100 0.013548 0.017706 0.014905 0.01498044 0.00075821271
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00910189 +/- 0.000290905
-37.7949% +/- 1.20796%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000884353)
p64v3r-mid-sparse-check vs. p64v3-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000314 0.000575 0.000367 0.00037028 4.793853e-05
+ 100 0.000192 0.000353 0.000213 0.00022851 3.1715113e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00014177 +/- 1.33698e-05
-38.2872% +/- 3.61074%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.06445e-05)
p64v3r-small-sparse-check vs. p64v3-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008628 0.011991 0.009568 0.00959736 0.00067287484
+ 100 0.008726 0.011427 0.009686 0.00977493 0.00066371996
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
Decent performance increase overall except mid-dense. That slowdown
can be explained by mid-dense almost always hitting the "check full
bitmap" optimization which used to be done with code written with the
level hardcoded to 0 which can simplify a lot of calculations. Now, the
level is passed as a function argument.
p64v3r2 is like p64v3r but instead of just doing the natrual thing
and just starting the recursion at the full bitmap, we do the quick
check of the full bitmap, then start the recursion at the highest
level.
Comparing to p64v3r:
p64v3r2-mid-dense-check vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.284074 0.319683 0.295312 0.29636127 0.0068496646
+ 100 0.247361 0.267703 0.256071 0.25619853 0.0044370252
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.0401627 +/- 0.00189829
-13.552% +/- 0.640534%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00577084)
p64v3r2-mid-mid-check vs. p64v3r-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.013605 0.017748 0.014806 0.01488863 0.00086653615
+ 100 0.019995 0.024699 0.021975 0.02202084 0.00095262276
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00713221 +/- 0.000299537
47.9037% +/- 2.01185%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000910597)
p64v3r2-mid-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000205 0.000344 0.000207 0.00022428 3.0166903e-05
+ 100 0.000292 0.000527 0.000333 0.0003473 5.0009797e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00012302 +/- 1.35848e-05
54.8511% +/- 6.05705%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.12978e-05)
mid-dense improves as expected, but two others get wrecked. In fact,
let's compare to p64v3:
p64v3r2-huge-sparse-check vs. p64v3-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2e-06 1.7e-05 2e-06 2.19e-06 1.5088627e-06
+ 100 2e-06 1.7e-05 2e-06 2.19e-06 1.5088627e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3r2-large-sparse-check vs. p64v3-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 4e-06 6e-06 5e-06 4.67e-06 6.5219133e-07
+ 100 3e-06 1.2e-05 4e-06 4.38e-06 1.5293757e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3r2-mid-dense-check vs. p64v3-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.247342 0.327149 0.256359 0.25739302 0.0082802183
+ 100 0.247361 0.267703 0.256071 0.25619853 0.0044370252
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3r2-mid-mid-check vs. p64v3-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.022475 0.026862 0.023973 0.02408233 0.00099462302
+ 100 0.019995 0.024699 0.021975 0.02202084 0.00095262276
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00206149 +/- 0.000320344
-8.56018% +/- 1.3302%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000973849)
p64v3r2-mid-sparse-check vs. p64v3-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000314 0.000575 0.000367 0.00037028 4.793853e-05
+ 100 0.000292 0.000527 0.000333 0.0003473 5.0009797e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-2.298e-05 +/- 1.61135e-05
-6.20611% +/- 4.3517%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.89851e-05)
p64v3r2-small-sparse-check vs. p64v3-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r2-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008628 0.011991 0.009568 0.00959736 0.00067287484
+ 100 0.007501 0.010297 0.008279 0.00842107 0.00062092481
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00117629 +/- 0.000212967
-12.2564% +/- 2.21901%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000647421)
Yup, the gains from p64v3r are almost wiped out. So it seems that it
actually pays to start from the lower levels.
Let's check that previous "so it seems that" statement. This is what
p64v3r3 is.
Compared to p64v3:
p64v3r3-huge-sparse-check vs. p64v3-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 2e-06 1.7e-05 2e-06 2.19e-06 1.5088627e-06
+ 100 1e-06 2e-06 1e-06 1.19e-06 3.9427724e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-1e-06 +/- 3.62746e-07
-45.6621% +/- 16.5637%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.10275e-06)
p64v3r3-large-sparse-check vs. p64v3-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 4e-06 6e-06 5e-06 4.67e-06 6.5219133e-07
+ 100 3e-06 4e-06 3e-06 3.07e-06 2.564324e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-1.6e-06 +/- 1.63004e-07
-34.2612% +/- 3.49046%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.95536e-07)
p64v3r3-mid-dense-check vs. p64v3-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.247342 0.327149 0.256359 0.25739302 0.0082802183
+ 100 0.234121 0.254807 0.241518 0.24205306 0.004155125
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.01534 +/- 0.00215487
-5.95974% +/- 0.837192%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00655084)
p64v3r3-mid-mid-check vs. p64v3-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.022475 0.026862 0.023973 0.02408233 0.00099462302
+ 100 0.012052 0.01477 0.013144 0.01313037 0.00077121887
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.010952 +/- 0.000292748
-45.4772% +/- 1.21562%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000889959)
p64v3r3-mid-sparse-check vs. p64v3-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000314 0.000575 0.000367 0.00037028 4.793853e-05
+ 100 0.000179 0.000318 0.000199 0.00020605 2.3942851e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00016423 +/- 1.24639e-05
-44.3529% +/- 3.36607%
(Student's t, pooled s = 3.78904e-05)
p64v3r3-small-sparse-check vs. p64v3-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008628 0.011991 0.009568 0.00959736 0.00067287484
+ 100 0.007581 0.009733 0.008285 0.00830776 0.00047237597
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.0012896 +/- 0.000191228
-13.437% +/- 1.9925%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000581335)
Improvement on all sets. We can see the same against p64v3r2. So it
seems we have our best candidate implementation. How does it compare
to simple:
p64v3r3-huge-sparse-check vs. simple-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000856 0.001234 0.000919 0.00093814 6.6426236e-05
+ 100 1e-06 2e-06 1e-06 1.19e-06 3.9427724e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00093695 +/- 1.5451e-05
-99.8732% +/- 1.64698%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.69713e-05)
p64v3r3-large-sparse-check vs. simple-large-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00076 0.001716 0.000779 0.00083314 0.00013628646
+ 100 3e-06 4e-06 3e-06 3.07e-06 2.564324e-07
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00083007 +/- 3.17003e-05
-99.6315% +/- 3.80492%
(Student's t, pooled s = 9.63693e-05)
p64v3r3-mid-dense-check vs. simple-mid-dense-check
x statdir/simple-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.220685 0.254971 0.228038 0.22901875 0.0054344739
+ 100 0.234121 0.254807 0.241518 0.24205306 0.004155125
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0130343 +/- 0.0015912
5.69137% +/- 0.694792%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00483728)
p64v3r3-mid-mid-check vs. simple-mid-mid-check
x statdir/simple-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.010274 0.017926 0.010719 0.01107091 0.0012050884
+ 100 0.012052 0.01477 0.013144 0.01313037 0.00077121887
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00205946 +/- 0.00033279
18.6024% +/- 3.00599%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00101169)
p64v3r3-mid-sparse-check vs. simple-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00084 0.002878 0.000974 0.0009775 0.00021171357
+ 100 0.000179 0.000318 0.000199 0.00020605 2.3942851e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00077145 +/- 4.95585e-05
-78.9207% +/- 5.06992%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000150658)
p64v3r3-small-sparse-check vs. simple-small-sparse-check
x statdir/simple-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p64v3r3-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.004232 0.00537 0.004442 0.00451139 0.00025890527
+ 100 0.007581 0.009733 0.008285 0.00830776 0.00047237597
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00379637 +/- 0.000125296
84.1508% +/- 2.77732%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000380901)
It looks like we got rid of the almost all the problems that
p64-naive had. small-sparse is still a bit wonky, but that's such
a small case it's not really worth it to do anything about
it. Populate remains slower, we'll try to deal with it later.
Let's try different sizes of the slots, first up are 8 bits at a time.
Comparing to p64v3b:
p8-huge-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p8-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 4.6e-05 1e-06 1.66e-06 4.5443271e-06
+ 100 2e-06 1.1e-05 2e-06 2.42e-06 1.4645991e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p8-large-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p8-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 3e-06 1e-05 3e-06 3.26e-06 9.6000842e-07
+ 100 5e-06 7.2e-05 6e-06 7.29e-06 6.9490134e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
4.03e-06 +/- 1.63169e-06
123.62% +/- 50.0519%
(Student's t, pooled s = 4.96036e-06)
p8-mid-dense-check vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p8-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.277588 0.298965 0.287498 0.2878485 0.0049996003
+ 100 0.356894 0.385163 0.372034 0.37136252 0.0074057173
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.083514 +/- 0.00207836
29.0132% +/- 0.722034%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00631825)
p8-mid-mid-check vs. p64v3r-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p8-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.013536 0.017466 0.014914 0.01484559 0.00084153774
+ 100 0.022145 0.027083 0.023998 0.02401451 0.0011494921
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00916892 +/- 0.000331365
61.7619% +/- 2.23207%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00100735)
p8-mid-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p8-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.00019 0.000325 0.000205 0.00022475 3.2637704e-05
+ 100 0.000355 0.000984 0.000394 0.0004307 8.8662395e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00020595 +/- 2.19758e-05
91.6352% +/- 9.77787%
(Student's t, pooled s = 6.68066e-05)
p8-small-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p8-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008668 0.012785 0.00958 0.00969532 0.00078296108
+ 100 0.015597 0.0238 0.017201 0.01740783 0.0012612985
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00771251 +/- 0.000345307
79.5488% +/- 3.56159%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00104974)
p8-huge-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p8-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 3.5e-05 0 4.6e-07 3.5030146e-06
+ 100 1e-06 5.2e-05 1e-06 1.54e-06 5.0998515e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p8-large-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p8-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 2.8e-05 1e-06 1.37e-06 2.7067256e-06
+ 100 2e-06 5.5e-05 2e-06 3.12e-06 7.3116484e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p8-mid-dense-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p8-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.451669 0.488183 0.465988 0.46613407 0.0081586728
+ 100 0.740399 0.806867 0.766752 0.76819697 0.012635936
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.302063 +/- 0.00349853
64.8017% +/- 0.750542%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0106356)
p8-mid-mid-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p8-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008563 0.014786 0.009512 0.00974717 0.0010219461
+ 100 0.014691 0.021071 0.016368 0.01652004 0.0013394804
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00677287 +/- 0.000391887
69.4855% +/- 4.02052%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00119134)
p8-mid-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p8-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 8.8e-05 0.000404 0.000126 0.00013567 4.3521516e-05
+ 100 0.000144 0.000361 0.000174 0.0001885 3.3777495e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
5.283e-05 +/- 1.28142e-05
38.9401% +/- 9.44514%
(Student's t, pooled s = 3.89554e-05)
p8-small-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p8-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.005811 0.00979 0.006589 0.0067828 0.00076679174
+ 100 0.009098 0.012777 0.010113 0.01024148 0.00073780872
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00345868 +/- 0.000247512
50.9919% +/- 3.64911%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00075244)
As I suspected, it's significantly slower or the same in most cases.
How about 32 bit slots?
p32-huge-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-huge-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-check
+ statdir/p32-huge-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 6e-06 2e-06 1.75e-06 6.2563099e-07
+ 100 1e-06 1e-05 2e-06 1.99e-06 1.2987562e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p32-large-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-large-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-check
+ statdir/p32-large-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 3e-06 1.3e-05 3e-06 3.47e-06 1.2669457e-06
+ 100 3e-06 1.9e-05 4e-06 4.72e-06 2.4124257e-06
Difference at 98.0% confidence
1.25e-06 +/- 6.33806e-07
36.0231% +/- 18.2653%
(Student's t, pooled s = 1.92678e-06)
p32-mid-dense-check vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-check
+ statdir/p32-mid-dense-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.283639 0.362975 0.297368 0.29950793 0.012709457
+ 100 0.278536 0.302758 0.288494 0.28898716 0.0050136061
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.0105208 +/- 0.00317792
-3.51268% +/- 1.06105%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00966091)
p32-mid-mid-check vs. p64v3r-mid-mid-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-check
+ statdir/p32-mid-mid-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.013604 0.016902 0.014839 0.01486397 0.00079581827
+ 100 0.014425 0.020254 0.015942 0.01593847 0.00098105876
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.0010745 +/- 0.000293832
7.22889% +/- 1.97681%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000893253)
p32-mid-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-check
+ statdir/p32-mid-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.000191 0.000343 0.000207 0.00021674 2.6079761e-05
+ 100 0.000237 0.000366 0.000261 0.00026546 2.0627245e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
4.872e-05 +/- 7.73421e-06
22.4785% +/- 3.56843%
(Student's t, pooled s = 2.35121e-05)
p32-small-sparse-check vs. p64v3r-small-sparse-check
x statdir/p64v3r-small-sparse-check
+ statdir/p32-small-sparse-check
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008656 0.012224 0.009492 0.00972584 0.00078972951
+ 100 0.01102 0.015438 0.012323 0.012476 0.00091128688
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00275016 +/- 0.000280485
28.2768% +/- 2.88391%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000852677)
p32-huge-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p32-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 3.6e-05 0 8.2e-07 3.588365e-06
+ 100 0 4.2e-05 0 7.7e-07 4.25893e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p32-large-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p32-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 3.3e-05 1e-06 1.73e-06 3.3085595e-06
+ 100 1e-06 0.000146 1e-06 2.82e-06 1.4834699e-05
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p32-mid-dense-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p32-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.440756 0.477085 0.455543 0.45674124 0.0070963826
+ 100 0.442975 0.527865 0.458514 0.45984113 0.010758253
Difference at 98.0% confidence
0.00309989 +/- 0.00299773
0.678697% +/- 0.65633%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00911314)
p32-mid-mid-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p32-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008337 0.013709 0.009517 0.0097025 0.00095346873
+ 100 0.008336 0.012756 0.009561 0.0096487 0.0008268858
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p32-mid-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p32-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 9.6e-05 0.000227 0.000104 0.00012007 2.6063735e-05
+ 100 9.9e-05 0.000185 0.000128 0.00012949 2.2415045e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
9.42e-06 +/- 7.996e-06
7.84542% +/- 6.65945%
(Student's t, pooled s = 2.43079e-05)
p32-small-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p32-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.005822 0.008629 0.006361 0.00653281 0.00054711725
+ 100 0.005814 0.008752 0.006531 0.00659868 0.00055600381
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
Huh. Not bad. It's overall slightly worse, but not much at all. It should definitely be good to go for a 32 bit architectures.
After putting this into the application I was actually dealing with it became apparent that populate actually matters. While searching through the bitmap significantly improved the overall performance, all the gains were eaten by the populate step.
After reading the generated code it becomes quite obvious that we spend a lot of time dealing with the general case of there being a large amount of levels, while in reality we can only have 6.
p64v3switch is an attempt to deal with that.
p64v3switch-huge-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3switch-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 3.6e-05 0 8.2e-07 3.588365e-06
+ 100 0 1e-06 0 8e-08 2.7265992e-07
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3switch-large-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3switch-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 3.3e-05 1e-06 1.73e-06 3.3085595e-06
+ 100 1e-06 1.4e-05 1e-06 1.13e-06 1.3e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3switch-mid-dense-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p64v3switch-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.440756 0.477085 0.455543 0.45674124 0.0070963826
+ 100 0.289989 0.316283 0.300275 0.30040975 0.0050334105
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.156331 +/- 0.00202367
-34.2276% +/- 0.443067%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00615199)
p64v3switch-mid-mid-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p64v3switch-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.008337 0.013709 0.009517 0.0097025 0.00095346873
+ 100 0.005528 0.008702 0.006151 0.00634305 0.00066345116
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00335945 +/- 0.000270184
-34.6246% +/- 2.78468%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000821362)
p64v3switch-mid-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3switch-mid-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 9.6e-05 0.000227 0.000104 0.00012007 2.6063735e-05
+ 100 5.5e-05 0.000163 7.6e-05 8.016e-05 2.0539059e-05
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-3.991e-05 +/- 7.71858e-06
-33.2389% +/- 6.4284%
(Student's t, pooled s = 2.34646e-05)
p64v3switch-small-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-small-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-small-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3switch-small-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.005822 0.008629 0.006361 0.00653281 0.00054711725
+ 100 0.003587 0.005177 0.003918 0.0040386 0.00038855557
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00249421 +/- 0.000156087
-38.1797% +/- 2.38928%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.000474506)
p64v3jump-huge-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-huge-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3jump-huge-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0 3.6e-05 0 8.2e-07 3.588365e-06
+ 100 0 9e-06 0 3.6e-07 9.797959e-07
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3jump-large-sparse-populate vs. p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-large-sparse-populate
+ statdir/p64v3jump-large-sparse-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 1e-06 3.3e-05 1e-06 1.73e-06 3.3085595e-06
+ 100 1e-06 1e-05 1e-06 1.17e-06 1.137559e-06
No difference proven at 98.0% confidence
p64v3jump-mid-dense-populate vs. p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64v3r-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p64v3jump-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.440756 0.477085 0.455543 0.45674124 0.0070963826
+ 100 0.286183 0.342344 0.295782 0.29644032 0.0071324367
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.160301 +/- 0.00234026
-35.0967% +/- 0.512383%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00711443)
Look at them numbers. Allowing the compiler to precompute some constants really helps. I'm generally not a big fan of unrolling loops, I consider most inlining and loop unrolling to be counter-productive (code size is often more important than avoiding branches when you're dealing with a large system), but applied carefully and conservatively it can help.
Since we're already making the code ugly, let's go full out. I happen
to know that clang (the version I use) will generate a jump table for
that switch. But there is no way to convince clang (or gcc for that
matter) that pb->levels is always in range of the jump table. So
before doing a lookup in the jump table the compiler has to make sure
that pb->levels is in range. That's an extra branch. Also, the
generated code seems to be jumping back and forth from the jump table
instead of generating more straightforward code. Even though the
branch predictor should always predict this correctly, let's try to
improve it.
p64v3jump does that. We're now deep into "shaving to lose weight"
territory. To achieve this we use a little known feature of gcc (which
clang also supports): computed gotos and labels as values. If it
wasn't clear, this is far beyond standard C.
p64v3jump-mid-dense-populate vs. p64v3switch-mid-dense-populate
x statdir/p64v3switch-mid-dense-populate
+ statdir/p64v3jump-mid-dense-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.289989 0.316283 0.300275 0.30040975 0.0050334105
+ 100 0.286183 0.342344 0.295782 0.29644032 0.0071324367
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00396943 +/- 0.00203052
-1.32134% +/- 0.675916%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0061728)
p64v3jump-mid-mid-populate vs. p64v3switch-mid-mid-populate
x statdir/p64v3switch-mid-mid-populate
+ statdir/p64v3jump-mid-mid-populate
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 100 0.005528 0.008702 0.006151 0.00634305 0.00066345116
+ 100 0.005461 0.007931 0.005996 0.00614494 0.00053166358
Difference at 98.0% confidence
-0.00019811 +/- 0.000197756
-3.12326% +/- 3.11767%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00060118)
Let's just show these two results. The rest is noise, too few calls. So it is maybe microscopically faster, but it is far below the noise level of my test machine.
p64v3r is the best implementation for first_set. Yes, p64v3r3
might be a hair faster in one very special case, but the code is
bigger and uglier. For populate we probably want to use the switch
version with the same argument - the jump table might be a hair
faster, but it's horribly ugly.
For my application the tests are not enough, we also need to test iterating over the sets with values that aren't equal to the previously returned value + 1, but that's a problem I can't really simulate here.